Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Lead

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the reduction of lead in the atmosphere over Britain since 1985.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The report by the Warren Spring laboratory on airborne lead concentrations in the United Kingdom 1984–88 shows a decrease from 408 nanogrammes of lead per cubic meter of air (ng/m3) in 1985 to 190 ng/m3 in 1988—that is a decrease of 53 per cent.

Mr. Davis: May I be the first to welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time and to say how glad we all are to see that his Trappist vows from his previous job as a Whip have not reduced his customary eloquence'? I am pleased to hear the figures that he cites because they reflect a marvellous performance. Does he agree that that is a first-class demonstration of the effectiveness of the policy of light regulation, combined with price and tax incentives, as a way of protecting the environment? What does he expect to see in the future in this area?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. The figures on airborne lead are, indeed, encouraging, but we continue our efforts to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. Already the switch to unleaded fuel is preventing 65 tonnes of lead per month from being emitted into the atmosphere. That shows the importance of our continuing campaign. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a first-class example of co-operation between the Government, the trade and the public.

Mr. James Lamond: In joining the welcome to the new Minister, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of his appointment because this week she wrote to me telling me that inquiries about textile matters should be addressed to Mr. Alan Clark, the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, although he was moved from there in the reshuffle before last.
Many motorists are still uncertain whether the instructions that they have read in the booklet issued by the Department are correct or whether the instructions suggested to them by the agents for the motor cars are

correct. It is sometimes suggested that motorist should use an occasional fill of leaded petrol. Does the Minister have any views on that point?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. On his point about advice from the trade, it is true that in certain instances new cars designed to run on unleaded petrol can benefit from small doses of leaded fuel during the running-in period, but that is highly incidental. To clear up any misunderstanding, my Department has just reprinted more copies of the excellent booklet, "Adjust to Unleaded", which I commend to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the public. It will remove any confusion or misunderstanding about the importance of unleaded fuel.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new job, but why have questions been planted by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches only on the issue of lead pollution in the atmosphere when the other pollutants from motor cars are far more significant factors in the pollution of the environment and there has been an increase in them, not a reduction? About 3,000 tonnes of lead and 1,031,000 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide are emitted annually from motor cars, and there has been an increase of 33 per cent. in the amount of carbon dioxide—the major greenhouse gas—emitted by cars in the past 10 years. Two Budgets ago the Government said that they would cut subsidies to company cars, yet 6,000 new cars per day come on to our roads, 50 per cent. of them company cars with Government subsidies. When will the Government switch resources to support public transport and actually reduce emissions of carbon dioxide?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman apparently belittles our campaign to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. We also have in train measures to reduce other forms of harmful emissions. They will be dealt with by the introduction of catalytic converters, which will greatly reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. I remind the hon. Gentleman that catalytic converters require unleaded fuel.

Acid House Parties

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the powers of local authorities to regulate the holding of acid house parties.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): My Department is currently consulting local authorities about the possible need to extend their powers to prevent or control acid house or similar parties. We will consider further action in the light of that consultation.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he is having consultations. Given the genuine danger of death or serious injuries at such parties, particularly when they might move indoors during the winter months, will he try, for the benefit of environmental health officers, to clarify the existing regulations further? Will he also do his best to extend them as the difficulty arises from the fact that the organisers use secrecy to evade anticipation by local authorities, which makes prevention extremely difficult?

Mr. Chris Patten: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I also agree with the chief constable of Surrey who said that uncontrolled parties represent a disaster that is waiting to happen with the possibility of fire risk, blocked exists, blocked roads and so on. At the moment we are consulting local authorities and I have no doubt that we must give them greater guidance on the powers already open to them. It is, of course, for the courts to decide ultimately, but I want to issue that guidance as soon as possible.

Mr. Skinner: If there are so many dangers attached to the possibility of holding acid house parties in this enterprise culture, and if the Minister agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that the consequences could be disastrous, would it not make sense for the Government to get their act together and for the various Departments, including the Department of the Environment, to make it plain to the Secretary of State for Health that, in the event of such a disaster and the need for ambulance crews to get to that disaster, those crews should be paid the money instead of being kept out on the streets?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, was able to hear the wholly convincing answers to that question made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the police intelligence unit in Gravesend, which co-ordinates with local authorities to deter acid house parties such as that suffered in Meopham in September? What hope is there of extending outside Greater London the penalty of imprisonment for those organisers whose actions represent non-compliance with local government licensing of such events?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right that proper co-ordination between the police and the local authorities is vital. At the moment we are considering with the Home Office, which is in the lead, the issue of penalties as well as guidance for local authorities. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael: Is it not ironic that the Minister is having to respond positively to a request from a Conservative Back Bencher for the extension of local authorities' powers when the Government of which he is a member have spent the past 10 years trying to undermine the authority of those local authorities in all sorts of ways, including on planning and licensing matters?

Mr. Patten: We have consistently tried to support and to strengthen responsible local government action and to deter irresponsible local government action. Unlike the previous Labour Government, we believe that the party was over for local authorities in the mid to late 1970s and that they should behave as responsibly and prudently as possible.

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much sales of unleaded petrol have increased since the 1988 Budget.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In the month to mid-October, unleaded petrol accounted for nearly 26 per cent. of the market. Demand has increased more than 250-fold since March 1988 when uptake stood at less than 0·1 per cent.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extremely good progress, which has been partly brought on by this year's excellent Budget changes? How many more cars could be converted to take unleaded fuel?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We estimate that there are still about 9 million cars on the road which are not run on unleaded fuel and could do so with minor adjustment or in some cases with no adjustment.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Gedling only three garages were selling unleaded petrol at the start of the year, but now virtually every garage in my constituency sells it? Is not that a tribute both to the wisdom of using the market mechanism to achieve this important environmental objective, and to the wisdom, good sense and responsibility of my constituents?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have heard about my hon. Friend's campaign for unleaded petrol in his constituency and I am glad that he has succeeded. Throughout the country, unleaded fuel is available in about 80 per cent. of petrol stations.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We all welcome the large number of people who have transferred to unleaded petrol, but will the Minister accept that the price cut was an effective weapon in persuading them? If so, has he considered the possibility of persuading the Chancellor to introduce similar incentives to encourage people to buy ozone-friendly household goods such as furniture polish?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Further tax changes are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. Lady is right to point to the success of the price difference of about 12p between leaded and unleaded petrol. The average motorist, who travels about 10,000 miles per year, will save £40 a year by using unleaded petrol, which is much more than the cost of adjusting the car.

Tenancies

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the assured tenancy and shorthold tenancy schemes.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The new schemes have been in operation for less than a year, but there are already encouraging signs—for example, more than £350 million has been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting homes on assured tenancies.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that in the short term the new scheme is unlikely to do a lot to help young people who come into London looking for low-cost digs and end up sleeping on the streets? Is he aware of what happened in Sweden, where there were similar problems of a shortage of accommodation for young people? A conscious decision was taken to make new property coming on to the market


entirely free from restrictions. That has produced a flood of accommodation and, therefore, the Swedes have solved the problem without Government intervention or spending.

Mr. Howard: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism about the effect of the changes that the Government have already made. In particular, I hope that she will join me in publicising the extent to which last Session's Act, the Housing Act 1988, has made it easier for people to let rooms in their houses. Under the Act, the charge is purely a matter of agreement between the parties and when the lodger shares accommodation with the owner, the owner no longer needs a court order for repossession.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is the opposite of the truth? No matter how much deregulation the Government bring into the rented housing market, the problems related to the expansion in that market lie elsewhere, as he well knows. How many additional units of rented accommodation does he expect to come on to the market in the next 12 months?

Mr. Howard: The business expansion scheme investment to which I referred could provide 6,000 to 7,000 extra properties. We are prepared to look at a range of initiatives to improve conditions in the housing market, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his party who are interested only in turning back the clock.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many private owners of empty property are still put off renting it because they have heard the scare stories about people losing accommodation in the past due to the regulations brought in by Socialist Governments? Could we do more to publicise the excellent changes that we have made to the housing regulations to get so many empty properties back on the market?

Mr. Howard: I am certainly looking at the possibilities of giving additional publicity to the changes that have been made. It is a sad fact, as my hon. Friend so correctly points out, that the Opposition's only contribution to the debate has been an irresponsible one.

Mr. Soley: Given the decline of 500,000 homes for rent in the private rented sector since 1980, and given that the rate of decline in that sector has accelerated in the 1980s, can the Government explain why their policy has failed so consistently and has accelerated the decline? If not, will the Minister take a walk round to just opposite Downing street and talk to the Shelter workers and the people sleeping rough there, who will tell him what I have been telling him in the House for more than two years?

Mr. Howard: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), the changes about which she has asked have been in force for less than a year. One cannot reverse long-seated trends in as short a time as that. When will the hon. Gentleman join us in looking at new initiatives to deal with the problem rather than adopting this negative attitude? The changes that his party would introduce, if it were ever returned to Government, would undoubtedly aggravate the problem.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of his recent discussions with representatives of the local authorities on the introduction of his recently announced amendments to the community charge arrangements.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Officials are discussing operational aspects of the community charge transitional relief scheme with the local authority associations. In addition, individual local authorities have been invited to make representations. In the light of the response from local government a paper setting out full details of the scheme will be issued shortly.

Mr. Jack: If Labour's control of Lancashire county council results in its exceeding his spending limits for next year while Conservative-controlled Fylde spends within its limits, would the county's action deny pensioners and other vulnerable groups the full benefit of the package of measures that he has just described?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises a serious problem —that of the prudent district council and the spendthrift Labour county council, but I give him this pledge. I shall bring regulations before the House prescribing the form of the bill and that bill will make it absolutely clear to every chargepayer which council is the overspender.

Mr. Madden: As the Minister visits Bradford with the frequency of a revolving door, does he agree that it would be a disgrace if my constituents living on the Lower Grange estate had to pay the poll tax before Bradford council kept its promise to build new homes for rent on that estate? In the unlikely event of question No. 80 being reached, will the Minister give a commitment to agree to the grant so that those houses for rent can be built before he introduces his poll tax charges?

Mr. Hunt: The poor hon. Gentleman! To continue the revolving door analogy, whereas in Bradford the Conservatives are well on the way in, he is well on the way out.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most helpful transitional arrangement that he can discuss to overcome the despair of community charge payers in counties such as Avon is community charge capping?

Mr. Hunt: I would greatly regret having to do that, but we shall not hesitate to cap overspending councils.

Mr. Gould: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Roy Thomason, the Tory chairman of the Association of District Councils, that his notional average poll tax figure will lead to "false expectations"? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertake to revise that figure upwards when the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement concedes, as he must, that his inflation forecast was too low? If the Government persist in using the bogus figure, does he agree that the so-called safety net will not save many people from paying more than the £3 extra once the poll tax arrangements take effect?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman quotes Mr. Thomason out of context. The real victims of the fact that Labour councils generally overspend will be those unfortunate


charge payers who live in those local authority areas, who are having false expectations thrust on them by spendthrift Labour councils.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that Cleveland has some of the highest rates in the country. When considering the arrangements, will he examine the possibility of putting law into practice so that the recommendations of the Audit Commission, which in Cleveland has identified savings of £307,000 in the highways department alone, will have the backing of law and will not be flouted by the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend, with characteristic accuracy, has identified a serious problem. The independent Audit Commission has recognised that in addition to the savings that my hon. Friend has mentioned there exists for local government a savings potential of £900 million of which only £350 million has so far been brought into effect. That is the challenge presently facing Labour local government.

Countryside (Access)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about what provisions for access to the countryside will be included in the proposed green Bill.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Government have stated their intention to legislate on a wide range of environmental issues as soon as parliamentary time allows, but it would be premature at this stage to confirm detailed proposals for the forthcoming Session.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. He will agree that may people enjoy walking as a leisure activity. However, over the past 20 years opportunities to get out into the countryside have been reduced because of house building, motorway extensions and other such matters. We need far more land to which people can gain access. Will the Government give careful consideration to including in the green Bill a walkers' charter which will allow people to have access to all mountain and moorland without having to go through the present complicated procedures?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I welcome what he says and recognise that access to the countryside is an important recreational pursuit. We have asked the rights of way review committee to examine certain proposals that the hon. Gentleman has discussed with my colleagues in the Department. They will report by the end of the year and we hope to take the matter forward. I also welcome initiatives that are being taken by the Countryside Commission to try to draw together the sometimes conflicting interests of land owners and land users.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the man on the Clapham omnibus has no more reason for walking around the average farm than the average farmer has for walking around the back garden of No. 879 Tottenham Court road?

Mr. Trippier: I touched on the very point that concerns my hon. Friend when I said that occasionally there can be conflicting interests between land owners and land users

That is precisely why I welcome the initiative taken by the Countryside Commission in relation to the setting up of local liaison groups to reconcile the differences between the two. Conciliation and not confrontation is by far the best way to resolve the dispute over rights of way.

Ms. Short: The Minister must know that the Countryside Commission and people throughout the country are desperately worried that some of our most beautiful land will be disposed of after water privatisation. What does he intend to do to protect our rights to use that land?

Mr. Trippier: I reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. We went to enormous lengths to introduce into the Water Act 1989 powers to ensure de facto access to water authority land. Water authorities have an excellent record for providing for that kind of public access and the Act has carried forward and improved those duties.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that far from our country being covered in housing as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested, 87 per cent. of the south-east of England is still green land or green belt, and the percentage in other parts of the country is much greater? The Conservative party is doing all in its power to preserve that situation.

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the opportunity to confirm that since the Government came to power in 1979, the extent of the green belt has more than doubled, and this is widely welcomed. I give my assurance that the Government are committed to continue to protect public access to the countryside, through any means possible, but principally through rights of way.

Product Labelling

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress was made towards the adoption of a Communitywide eco-labelling system at the meeting of Ministers on 19 September.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am pleased to say that the Environment Council on 19 September asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for a Communitywide scheme of eco-labelling as soon as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some danger that in their rush to appear environment friendly, retailers are either over general or misrepresenting in their labelling, as manifested by a sign that I saw outside a garage in Southwold in Suffolk when I was on my holiday, which said, "Environmentally free food for sale"? Given that we need accurate information, can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government will take the view that we need specific rather than general information, and that it should be substantiated by fact, and that the Government will not continue their opposition to the inclusion of food and drink in the system of European Communitywide eco-labelling?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman will concede, the consumer can move forward the environment cause far more effectively in many ways than regulation is able to do, although regulation also has its part to play. We put out a consultation document in the summer, and we are looking at the responses to that. We have also suggested,


which I am sure is right, that we should have an eco-labelling scheme on a Communitywide basis, particularly with the single market in 1992. It is important to protect people from the rip-offs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As to whether food and drink should be included, there are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, initiatives covering organic food. In the next few weeks, we shall be discussing whether we should go beyond that.

Ms. Quin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that while it would be a good idea to get European agreement on an environmental labelling scheme, there is nothing to prevent the Government from introducing one here as early as possible, along the lines of those in West Germany and Canada? Is it not essential to do something along these lines quickly? Otherwise, consumers will continue to be conned by bogus green claims.

Mr. Patten: I agree with both the points that the hon. Lady has made. We want to get ahead with the scheme, but if we can have a Europewide scheme, so much the better. We need to deal with bogus schemes. There are some criticisms made of the German scheme—for example, that it does not take matters from cradle to grave—but it has set the pace in many ways.

Environmental Groups

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any official engagements he has between the present time and the end of November with environmental groups.

Mr. Chris Patten: I regularly meet a wide variety of environmental groups. My next such meeting will be with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on 16 November.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Secretary of State considered meeting CAND—Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping —an environmentally conscious group? Will he take congnisance of the fact that yesterday, the people of Caithness voted three to one against nuclear waste being stored at Dounreay, thereby ensuring that the people, the district council and the regional council all come out on the same side of the argument? Will he take a more positive attitude than that of Nirex and recognise that the views of the people are ultimately the most important aspect of this debate?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland meets many groups, that he has met many of the individuals referred to by the hon. Lady, and that he has given them effective and robust answers.

Mr. Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announced willingness to meet a considerable range of environmental groups. Does he agree that his critical role is to ensure that the environmental option is considered in each and every decision, rather than that it should invariably be the option adopted when sometimes other issues will overtake that issue and so make it better for it not to be adopted?

Mr. Patten: That was an interesting question, which I am still following as best I can. I think that my hon. Friend was making the reasonable point that we must be

increasingly aware of the environmental impact of every decision that we make both as a Government and as individual consumers. To that extent it is obvious that a sensible environment policy does not stop at the front door of the Department of the Environment. It affects all Government Departments, and that is something to which we shall be drawing attention in our White Paper next year.

Mr. Morley: How does the Secretary of State react to criticisms from environment groups about the Government's reaction to the conference in Holland on global warming? Other European countries are willing to accept target limits for a reduction in emissions from cars, factories and power stations but the British Government, along with the United States, have refused to join other European countries in dealing with the matter. Does this not give the claim that the Government are leading the campaign on global warming a somewhat bogus front?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question might have been difficult to answer if it had been based on the truth. We accepted emission targets at the Netherlands conference. My hon. Friend the Minister of State played a leading role in brokering a consensus on emission targets at the conference, and he deserves the congratulations of the House rather than uninformed criticism.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: When my right hon. Friend meets environment groups, does he find that they share the views of my constituents that he was wise to say that planning considerations should be left to democratically elected local authorities and should find their way to his desk and the desks of his inspectors only as a last resort?

Mr. Patten: It remains one of my ambitions to take fewer planning decisions myself. I want to see local planning authorities taking decisions as far as possible. Obviously they need to take account of regional and national interests when they are drawing up local plans For example.

River Soar

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): No representations have been received specifically concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester. However, a total of 44 representations have been received as a result of advertisements by Severn Trent Water of applications for time-limited discharge consents for certain sewage treatment works which discharge into the Soar upstream of Leicester. These are to allow the completion of capital improvement schemes to raise effluent quality standards.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the River Soar, which runs through my constituency and our beautiful Abbey park is becoming an eyesore? Does he understand that it is clogged with weeds, mud and filth? Will he as a rower, albeit a cox, appreciate the complaints that have been made by Leicester rowing club, fishermen and boatmen and by the general public about the state of the river? Will he take steps to have it cleaned up now?

Mr. Moynihan: As a cox I would have to avoid many floats on the River Soar not least because it is one of our leading cyprinid waters.

Mr. Skinner: What?

Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows all about cyprinid waters. He will inform the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that as a result of this it is recognised to be a fine, pure river and one that has extremely effective coarse fishing that is among the best in Europe, and is designated as such by the European Commission.

Litter

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he intends to increase the fines for dropping litter.

Mr. Trippier: We propose to increase the maximum fine for littering under the Litter Act 1983 from £400 to £1,000. We propose also to allow district and borough councils to operate fixed penalty schemes for littering, similar to that currently operating exclusively in Westminster.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for the information that he has given the House. I and others, I am sure, will welcome the increase in fines. Does he agree with me that there is no question but that Britain has become a filthy, mucky place where public places are like rubbish tips? The increase in fines is a long overdue measure and we welcome it. Will he consider extending the Westminster scheme in a way that would enable traffic wardens and others to exercise the powers that it provides? In that way we would restrict more thoroughly the activities of litter louts.

Mr. Trippier: Until litter louts can be persuaded to give up their dirty, inconsiderate and unsocial behaviour, the problem will remain. That is precisely why we are introducing legislation that will include very tough proposals to deal with the problem. We are also hoping to replicate the example set by the City of Westminster so that local authorities can appoint litter wardens, who will be responsible for fixed penalty fines.

Ms. Armstrong: Are not local authorities concerned about the way in which the Government are tackling the problem? Would it not be much better to enable local authorities to employ people in villages for example who could work with the local people to prevent the dropping of litter and to ensure that the whole area is cleaned? Have not the Government caused part of the problem because they have cut the resources of local authorities so that they have had to sack those who could have done the job?

Mr. Trippier: I wholly reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. I could take her to two local authorities in the north that are both controlled by the Labour party, but where the difference in their efficiency and their attitude towards litter collection is absolutely stark. Unless many local authorities take a different attitude, the position will not improve.
I could make some suggestions about areas in which local authorities could save resources. Many of them would do well to abandon their wasteful expenditure on campaigns and nuclear-free zone signs and instead concentrate more on litter-free zones.

Mr. Tracey: Has my hon. Friend considered the low fines imposed for dropping litter? Is he aware that the heaviest possible measures that the Government might take would be welcomed by the public and would encourage magistrates to impose heavy fines?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that magistrates will take note of the growing public anger about litter when they are considering imposing fines. Paltry fines will send out the wrong message.

Mr. Gould: Are not the filthy streets and the litter-strewn public places, which are now the daily depressing experience of millions of people, in many ways the most visible evidence of what has gone wrong in Thatcherite Britain? Does the Minister understand that that malaise will not be cured by silly slogans or fiddling with fines? Unless the Government provide real resources so that local authorities can tackle the job, the Minister might as well take his green Bill and bag it and bin it.

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that I hope that he remains an Opposition spokesman for a very long time.
It is interesting that there have been two questions about resources for local authorities. Is it not amazing that Westminster, Canterbury and the London boroughs of Sutton and Wandsworth are showing that determination coupled with efficiency can produce excellent results within existing budgets? I give notice to the hon. Gentleman that during the passage of the so-called green Bill, I shall be looking to him for 100 per cent. support. He will ignore that caution at his peril.

Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend has explained that some local authorities are not dealing with the litter problem, should there not be a reverse system of fines? Not only the public but local authorities do not fulfil their duties. It is often the case, especially in the south coast resorts, that local authorities do not empty the litter bins. Should there not be a system of fines for local authorities and, perhaps, even a list of the worst offenders?

Mr. Trippier: I am glad to say that I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that he seeks. We shall introduce powers in the forthcoming legislation which will allow any individual citizen or collection of individuals to take the local authority to court if they are not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area and that is precisely what my hon. Friend is asking for.

Pollution

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been initiated this year against companies responsible for pollution; and what is the total of fines imposed.

Mr. Trippier: Information on prosecutions in respect of offences under legislation controlling polluting activity is published annually in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics and other sources. Comprehensive information for 1989 is not yet available centrally. I understand, however, that since one regulatory agency, the National Rivers Authority, fully assumed its


responsibilities on 1 September this year, 53 court cases in relation to pollution offences have been heard and 83 similar cases are pending.

Mr. Alton: If the principle is that the polluter should pay, does the Minister agree that the fines that have been imposed during the past decade, and the number of prosecutions, have been derisory? Does the Minister agree that it is not right to allow 200 companies to pollute the River Mersey? That is crazy. For example, Shell recently discharged 150 tonnes of crude oil into the River Mersey. Does he agree that his Department should have initiated a public inquiry? The failure to do that showed that, in the face of big companies, although the Department talks green, they haul up the white flag.

Mr. Trippier: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. That is why we are toughening up legislation in the forthcoming green Bill and the powers we are giving to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We are also giving greater powers to local authorities. I am sure that they will assume them responsibly.
The hon. Gentleman is sorry that we did not have a public inquiry, but I remind him that we had a full investigation by the Department of Energy and a full investigation by the National Rivers Authority, which decided to take legal action against Shell. I understand that, from Monday, the case has been transferred to Liverpool Crown court. Those are tougher measures than a public inquiry. In addition to that, Professor Bradshaw, an eminent scientist and expert in nature conservation from Liverpool university will study the effects of oil spillages, not only on the Mersey but in a wider brief. We shall all learn from that study. The combination of those three measures is effective and, in many ways tougher than the measures the hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the House.

Mr. Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have implemented the bulk of the clauses relating to water pollution in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, in sharp contrast to the last Labour Government which introduced the law and did nothing with it?

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. If we in the Department of the Environment discover that some gaps remain in the COPA legislation, we hope to close them with the forthcoming Bill.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that people on Merseyside felt that the Government's action, or inaction, over the pollution of the River Mersey by an oil spill left a lot to be desired? Should we not congratulate the local government workers who responded immediately to that problem and who probably reduced the effect of what must be the worst environmental problem that Britain has faced since the Secretary of State came into office? I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not make himself available on day one to make a proper assessment of the situation on the Mersey, and I have to agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who said that the oil company ought to pay the maximum amount of money necessary for clearing up the oil spillage for the damage and for the money that has already been spent on cleaning up the Mersey basin.

Mr. Trippier: I would be the first to compliment not

only the local authorities—both elected representatives and officers—but the workers, whom I had the opportunity of meeting, who cleaned up the oil spillage caused by the fracture of the pipe owned by Shell. Their.
Two Ministers of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) and myself, paid speedy visits to the site. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we were effective in bringing about Professor Bradshaw's inquiry. As a result of the spillage, the National Rivers Authority decided to take the action that has now put Shell in court. I do not know what more the Government could have done we responded very positively.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

Mr. Howard: From April 1979 to June 1989 almost 1·1 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

Mr. Knox: What is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the potential for future council house sales?

Mr. Howard: I believe that there is significant potential for an increase in the trend, and we are doing all that we can to encourage that.

Mr. Winnick: What about allowing local authorities, in financial terms, to build council houses? Is it not the case that more people will be homeless this Christmas than at any time since the end of the war? Are not the Minister and the Secretary of State disgusted that so many people should be living in squalid accommodation, homeless—or virtually homeless—in bed-and-breakfast dwellings? That state of affairs arises directly from Government policy.

Mr. Howard: Planned public spending on housing this year and over the next two years amounts to nearly £13 billion. Of course we are aware of the problems, anti we are mounting a tremendous effort to overcome them.

Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the figures that he has announced are marvellous news for the country as a whole, as well as for those who purchase their council houses? Is he aware that there are still many thousands of people with applications in the pipeline who are looking forward to purchasing their homes as soon as they can, and that the trend is accelerating in many parts of the country?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The advantages of home ownership are apparent to a growing number of people, and, as he has said, the trend is increasing.

Mr. O'Brien: I have noted the Minister's replies. Will he enlighten the House, however, by telling us how many houses will be built for rent this year? Will he take note of the requests from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, housing associations and Shelter, which have said that there is a shortage of houses for rent? Will he allow local authorities to use their receipts from the sale of council houses to build houses which can be let at an affordable rent, so that the waiting lists can be shortened and homeless people can be accommodated?

Mr. Howard: Some 2 million additional houses have been built over the past 10 years. The budget of the Housing Corporation, on planned figures, will increase by about 60 per cent. over the next three years, and the resources generally to be made available—as I have just said—amount to some £13 billion over this and the next two years. That will enable a large number of houses to be built to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Water Industry (Investment)

Mr. Carttiss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what announcements were made during the summer adjournment about the future investment programme of the water industry.

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning anounced a major new capital investment programme over the next 10 years designed to improve our drinking water, to renew sewers and sewage treatment works and to clean up our beaches.

Mr. Carttiss: My constituency has enjoyed the advantages of a private-enterprise water supply company for the past 150 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the promising prospect of future investment is possible because of the financial framework that the water industry will have after privatisation? Will he confirm that the much brighter future water investment picture contrasts sharply with the savage cuts in investment made by the last Labour Government?

Mr. Moynihan: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. As he will be aware, the 10-year investment programme secures compliance with the regulatory requirements taken into account when setting price limits. It provides a secure framework for achieving service objectives and it will allow the water industry to maintain and extend the operating capability of relevant assets.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the announcements made in the summer about debt write-off and the so-called green dowry mean that taxpayers will be net losers to the tune of £1·3 billion in the water sell-off? Does this not mean that 10 years of Conservative Government have left the water industry in such a precarious position that the Government have had to provide the largest bribe ever to get the industry off their hands?

Mr. Moynihan: The statistics and factors that the hon. Lady brought before the House are not a fair comparison. She will be aware that the Government's 10-year investment programme of £24·6 billion will be a major boon to all customers, not least because they will be aware that only last week the Labour party announced its prospectus estimate of £22 billion. Customers will receive better service, more environmental safeguards and improvements, better sewage treatment facilities and improved bathing water quality. The public would be sold short by the Labour party by £2·6 billion.

Mr. Trotter: When my hon. Friend considers the investment programme of Northumbria water authority, will he bear in mind the almost unanimous opposition of the people of Tyneside to its proposal to build a toxic

waste plant at Howdon in the middle of a built-up area? Will he bear in mind that any such proposal should be deleted from the investment programme?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this issue on behalf of his constituents. The Tyne and Wear development corporation refused planning permission for a sewage sludge industrial waste incinerator at Howdon on 11 September. The applicants, Northumbria Water and the International Technology Corporation, have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of planning permission. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in the circumstances I cannot comment on the proposal, but I understand fully that it has caused considerable local anxiety. That anxiety has been brought to the attention of the House and of the Ministers responsible, mainly by my hon. Friend's assiduous work.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce further modifications to the poll tax regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: The Government have no plans to introduce further legislative changes in the community charge arrangements beyond the announcement made by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 11 October.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that further modification is needed for people living in sheltered accommodation? If such people still have property, they will be liable for the poll tax in two places, unless the 12-month limit is applied to them. Who will pay the poll tax? Will such people pay twice?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will know that on the standard community charge, we recently announced that local authorities will not only have discretion over which class is subject to which multiplier, but will be able to separate within a class for different types of property. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies with the local authorities.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the modifications that he has made to the way in which the community charge will operate will make it a wonderful new system for the elderly and disabled, particularly the blind?

Mr. Hunt: I am very pleased to be able to announce to the House that, following representations that have been made to me by my right hon. and hon. Friends, disabled people will be singled out under the transitional relief arrangements for special treatment and that we have decided that the test should not only be receipt of one of the recognised disability benefits but that it should also include all people who are registered blind.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister explain why it is that although the Government have been imposing this iniquitous poll tax on the Scottish people during the last eight months and have been meeting massive resistance from the population, it was only when English


Conservative Back Benchers started to squeal about their seats and their majorities that they decided to introduce these panicky changes to the poll tax regulations?

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman would give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity, I am sure that he would welcome the chance to explain to the hon. Gentleman how well the community charge is going down in Scotland.

Green Belt

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land in England and Wales now has green belt status; and what was the position 10 years ago.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: In 1979 there were about 1·8 million acres of approved green belt in England. Today there are around 4·5 million acres. There is no green belt in Wales.

Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend and the Government generally are to be congratulated on the doubling of the

green belt, in contradistinction to the propaganda that I hear outside the House, according to which one would have thought that the amount of green belt was falling instead of increasing. That said, will my hon. Friend look favourably on any application that he receives from Humberside county council for green belt status, particularly against the background of my constituency of Beverley which now resembles a large building site?

Mr. Moynihan: I am aware that Humberside county council is discussing the idea with the districts concerned in my hon. Friend's constituency. Subject to the outcome of the discussions, the county council may decide to publish a draft structure plan alteration formally launching the green belt proposal in the spring of next year. My hon. Friend knows that the Department has no formal standing in the matter. I am sure that he appreciates that I cannot express any view at the Dispatch Box today on the merits of the proposal, since that might prejudice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position, should a structure plan alteration come formally before him for consideration.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important issue that requires urgent consideration, namely,
the effect on the European policies of Her Majesty's Government of the current events in eastern Europe.
A year ago it is doubtful whether anyone would have predicted that Hungary would now be on the threshold of Western-style democracy. Who, six months ago, would have imagined a non-Communist Government in Poland? Who, even one week ago, could have conceived the fall of the politburo in that most orthodox of all Communist states, East Germany?.
The political map of half our continent is melting and re-forming before our very eyes, yet the business of this House goes on as though nothing has changed, as President Mitterrand seeks to drag us in accelerating haste into his version of a federal Europe—a naive and doomed device aimed at preventing the inevitable reunification of Germany. It seems that the more rapidly the European certainties diminish the more manic becomes the barrage of directives to which we are continually being subjected. At a time when we should be considering the future of Europe as a whole, our Ministers are instead daily confronted with coercive pressures to subscribe to the increasingly irrelevant political confetti of the social charter and Delors parts 2 and 3.
There are major movements under the earth's crust of our continent. The final geology is unknown and unpredictable. This is hardly the time to embark on an atlas of new treaties and the transfer of powers to that part of our continent that is centred on the Berlaymont.
Twice a year we debate the last six months in Brussels. Twice a week we powerlessly pore over its latest edicts. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that before we move any further down this narrow road, the House must have an opportunity to debate the historic events that are so dramatically and rapidly unfolding before us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effect on the European policies of Her Majesty's Government of the current events in eastern Europe." 
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but, as he knows, I must decide whether his application falls within the Standing Order and whether the debate should be given priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the current state of the ambulance dispute.
It would be difficult to conceive a matter more urgent than the grave crisis that confronts the ambulance service in London. Management have withdrawn the emergency cover provided by professional ambulance staff and their 450 ambulances. Emergency cover for London is being provided by 53 police vehicles, which may be joined this afternoon by 50 Army vehicles. Yesterday, the Secretary of State accused ambulance staff of pretending and posturing. Today, it will be he who is pretending if he claims that that represents adequate emergency cover.
There are two questions on which it is vital that the House should have the opportunity of challenging Ministers. First, why have they insisted on calling in the Army when ambulance staff are available at every ambulance station in London? Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that the 14 points of the work to rule prevented ambulance staff from providing emergency cover. I have those 14 points here, and nearly all of them relate to non-emergency work. Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that the 14 points included a ban on radiophones, but there is no ban on radiophones for emergency use. The text specifically states:
Crews will now return to ambulance stations for next instructions unless contacted by control to answer an emergency call.
It is not ambulance staff who have suspended emergency calls but management who have decided to escalate the dispute.
The second question to be addressed is how can Ministers be so convinced that 6.5 per cent. is the right award for ambulance staff, yet at the same time be so terrified of putting that case to arbitration? The country knows that this dispute could end today and that full cover could be restored if the Secretary of State would call in the arbitrators instead of the Army.
The budget of the National Health Service, the pay of its staff and the maintenance of the ambulance service are all matters for which Ministers are responsible, yet since the start of the dispute eight weeks ago they have not once met the staff side in an attempt to find a solution. It is the Secretary of State, not Duncan Nichol, who is responsible for the cash limits on the National Health Service, and this House is the place where he must be held to that responsibility. I submit that this is a proper matter requiring urgent debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ambulance dispute.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion


to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful following your ruling, Sir, if I were to say that the debate on parliamentary pensions, which was arranged for tomorrow afternoon, will need to be postponed. The House will regret the need for doing that, but obviously it follows from the ruling that you have given. I hope to find time for that debate as soon as possible.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to the point of order Mr. Speaker. Of course we accept that the debate on Members' pensions should be postponed. The Opposition, at least, recognise that, although that matter is important, the dispute in the ambulance service is far more important.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of us heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has chosen to leave the Chamber, say clearly —indirectly addressing you, Sir—"You grant that and you lose your job."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need hear any more. Fortunately, I did not hear that remark.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Member's application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Marlow: This is on a different point. I was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and I did not hear him say anything. What I did hear was the Leader of the Opposition, in his agitated and florid way, inciting his Back Benchers to raise points of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can now get on with today's business in a parliamentary fashion.

BILL PRESENTED

STUDENT CHARTER

Mr. Simon Hughes, supported by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and set the functions of a committee to ensure access to further and higher education establishments; to provide for the welfare of students at such establishments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

National Missing Persons' Register

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police forces to submit standardised information to a national missing persons' register within a prescribed time; and for other purposes.
Anxiety is growing over the way in which we handle the problem of missing persons. [Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly if they are not remaining for the submission.

Mr. Arnold: Research by the Church of England Children's Society shows that, in 1986, 98,000 people were reported as missing. Although this includes individuals who go missing more than once during the year, it is calculated that some 50 per cent. of disappearances go unreported. Although a significant number of people are recovered in days or within a week, many remain missing. Far too many of these head for the bright lights of London. The Central London Teenage Project reports that, although some 40 per cent. of teenagers coming into the capital originated in London and the south-east, 16 per cent. were from the north and north-west and 12 per cent. were from Scotland. These are young people who arrive at King's Cross or Euston, many of whom fall prey to the predators of crime, prostitution or commercial exploitation.
In the circumstances, the British Transport police do a valiant job in coping with these runaways, but they have to waste an immense amount of time trying to establish the identity of many of the young people whom they pick up. The teenage project, which assists young people in its centre, always makes checks with Scotland Yard's missing persons register and has made the disturbing discovery that only 39 per cent. of runaways are registered as missing and 61 per cent. are not. We should ask, why not?
We have a haphazard system of recording missing persons. The system has grown like Topsy. We have 53 police forces, each with its own policy. In my county of Kent, missing persons are classified as vulnerable or not vulnerable. These are basically minors, pensioners or those with medical, psychological or suspicious records. The rules require them to be registered as missing within four hours of report and details are forwarded to neighbouring divisions or forces that are thought relevant to the case. They are reported to New Scotland Yard only if the person is thought to have headed for London. All cases are reported to New Scotland Yard after three days.
I have also looked at the position at my own Gravesend police station. It has had 103 cases of disappearances so far this year. Overwhelmingly, those have been solved within 48 hours. When I made my inquiries, there were only two cases outstanding—one from the previous night and one reported six days previously. To what extent do other forces follow suit? Are they as tight in informing New Scotland Yard? Why is it that the Central London Teenage Project found that 61 per cent. of runaways were not registered centrally? Could it be loose policy by some police forces? One Welsh force, for example, only forwards details of vulnerable people to Scotland Yard after 14 days. Could it be that the two thirds of runaways from home come from families who do not bother to notify the


police or are scared to do so? One third of runaways come from social services care. Could that reflect the supervision and sense of responsibility of a number of those departments?
This is not a new problem. Dick Whittington came to London to seek his fortune and in the 19th century, Charles Dickens's Fagin displayed in a genteel fashion the way in which young runaways could be led into crime. However, the scope for the international exploitation of young, vulnerable people is new. With a vast increase in travel, there may be an expansion of white slaving and of the involvement of young people in drug running. Clearly, that motivated the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to recommend the co-ordination of national offices responsible for tracing missing persons. But if international mobility and, possibly, the sophistication of criminal exploitation have increased, so too have the technological aids available to the police.
Scotland Yard has operated a police national computer at Hendon since 1974. In addition to a variety of registers, it has run an index of wanted and missing persons since 1978. Last year, it held files on 9,951 missing people. They included 495 boys and 425 girls aged under 14, 980 youths and 1,172 girls aged 14 to 18, and 3,696 men and 3,183 women over 18. By the end of the year, 2,156 of those people were still missing. Of those reported missing, 5,000 returned home voluntarily. Nearly one third were found as a result of police inquiries or publicity, 2 per cent. were found dead and 3 per cent. were held by the police because they were accused of offences.
The police national computer has several hundred terminals held by force headquarters and some divisions. They can be used for viewing and entering data, although only about one half of the forces can interface them with their own computers. The index is essentially a passive and

voluntary aid to our 53 police forces. If it were to become a standard requirement to enter specified data within an obligatory time frame, a more complete and systematic response could be achieved.
We require a framework that establishes an obligation to register all minors, pensioners and those considered vulnerable on medical or psychological grounds. Experience shows that immediate inquiries following clearly established leads tend to produce a contact with the overwhelming majority of missing persons within 48 hours. It is, therefore, reasonable to require notification to the national register within that time limit for those cases whose lack of solution demonstrates potential seriousness. A requirement for cancellation and for frequent case review, perhaps fortnightly by originating forces, is clearly essential to avoid clogging the system.
Clearly, all this will involve resources, both to operate the enhanced national register of missing persons on the national police computer and to develop methods to take advantage of the wider scope of information. The Association of Chief Police Officers has submitted a report to the Home Office, which has yet to pronounce upon it. I stress to Home Office Ministers the urgency and importance of addressing the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Frank Field, Sir George Young, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. John Marshall, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Ronnie Fearn and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

NATIONAL MISSING PERSONS' REGISTER

Mr. Jacques Arnold accordingly presented a Bill to require police forces to submit standardised information to a national missing persons' register within a prescribed time; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed.—[Bill 219.]

Local Government and Housing Bill. and Employment Bill (Allocation of. Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill:.

Lords Amendments

1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill shall he completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Bill shall also be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

3—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not he interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

5. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings

6. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals

Supplemental

7.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed

8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall he put forthwith

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings

(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order

Last Thursday when I announced the business for this week I told the House that we would spend Monday and Tuesday considering the Local Government and Housing Bill and that today we would deal with the Employment Bill as amended in another place. I hope that the whole House—certainly a large part of it—will regret that it has not proved possible to keep to that arrangement, which was agreed through the usual channels as a sensible division of the time available

It became clear yesterday that we were not making progress at anything like the pace—a perfectly possible pace—implied by those arrangements. That is why last night I had to inform the House of this revision of the business.

I recently had cause to remind the House of the Government's entitlement to achieve—after due con-sideration and debate—the passage of its business. We are now at the last stages of that process for both Bills. Both


are major parts of our programme on which both Houses have expended much thought and energy. We should not have introduced these Bills had we not been sure that they were necessary and valuable to the country. The House has confirmed that opinion at each stage. It would be a waste of the House's time and a failure in our duty to the electorate not to take sensible steps to safeguard both of the measures.

There are good, important measures in both of the Bills to increase democratic accountability and freedom. I shall, therefore, leave it to the Opposition to use dramatic and bloody metaphors about guillotines and slaughter. I shall continue to refer to this elegant motion correctly, as a timetable motion, which is absolutely necessary to dispose of the remaining business in a reasonable way

Let me at this point pre-empt another argument that may be heard from Opposition Members, who usually assure us at this stage of their willingness—indeed, incredibly, their enthusiasm—to stay up all night and half the following day to consider any and every Bill. We all accept that there are times when we have to sit through the night. But neither I nor the country at large think it the most sensible way to give proper consideration to legislation. I see no reason to sit all night for the sake of a few self-proclaimed enthusiasts on the Opposition Benches who feel that spinning out the proceedings instead of allowing the business to be completed in a practical way somehow proves—as they would love to believe—that they have the Government on the run

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House accept that women who are being discriminated against and cannot obtain proper employment and young people who will be affected badly by the Bill will take exception to the way in which he trivialises their concerns and the concerns that some Opposition Members feel on their behalf?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in the least trivialising real concerns about those real issues. The hon. Lady is right to point out that the second of the two Bills before us is intended to promote equality of opportunity in employment and vocational training and to repeal the discriminatory legislation that exists. There is no argument about the merit, purpose and quality of the Bill and it should be possible to discuss it sensibly along the lines originally agreed or those now foreshadowed.
I should like to remind the House that following the representations made on a similar occasion not long ago, I was able last night to ensure that we had both a debate on the Adjournment motion and an opportunity to ask questions on the business statement. Since Opposition Members have already had those two opportunities to express their indignation I venture to cherish the hope that we may be able to dispatch this timetable motion in less than the three hours potentially available for it and so get on to the substantive business.
We have been considering the Local Government and Housing Bill for the whole of the past two days and we should have completed consideration by now. We are not therefore curtailing debate on that Bill but, having reviewed progress made, have added two hours to the time already spent—and on to the more than 210 hours already spent on the Bill here and in another place.
Of course, there have been a large number of amendments to the Bill. That is not surprising: it is a major piece of legislation which completes essential reforms to the framework within which local authorities operate. All our efforts in that area have been directed to ensure that every council meets the standards of efficiency, accountability and fairness to which the best councils already adhere. The Oposition have made clear their lack of enthusiasm for that. Even so, on Monday we managed to deal with more than 300 amendments on important subjects such as councillors' allowances and the community charge and still get home not much past midnight. Last night, in contrast, we dealt with less than half that number in five hours, with four and a half hours spent on the first group of amendments,

Mr. Clive Soley: The Leader of the House has no defence on that. There was a clear understanding that it would be possible to complete the first day's consideration of the Local Government and Housing Bill by midnight because the amendments tabled were largely concessions or changes that we saw as moving in the right direction. The difference is—I pointed it out last week—that the clauses dealing with housing are infinitely more complex and disputed and the Government have not moved at all, and in some cases are trying to reverse the Lords' amendments.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his judgment on these matters just as I am entitled to offer mine. We had fair warning that the rate of progress was not likely to improve although Opposition Members assured us, when we moved to adjourn last night, that all the amendments that really interest them come at the end of the Bill.
We have not had the chance to hear the House's views on the Employment Bill since it returned from another place but we shall have three hours to do so tonight. I will not pre-empt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by detailing all its manifest merits. However, I will remind the House that the Bill contains important measures to promote equal opportunities, to remove restrictions on young people's employment and to reduce the burden of regulations on employers. Those are entirely beneficient propositions. The Bill has had 85 hours of parliamentary consideration and a further three should be sufficient because there are only two significant fresh propositions among the amendments. The first, relating to Sikhs and safety helmets in the construction industry, was introduced as a matter of urgency and great concern to the Sikh community. The second, relating to industrial training boards, has been discussed extensively with interested parties over the past few months and the general policy was announced as long ago as last December. It was not included in the Bill until the policy detail had been agreed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why, then, is the Employment Bill to be timetabled? There was no timetable on it in Committee or during its other proceedings in this House and the other place. The Leader of the House has stated that only two main items remain to be discussed. Those debates could be open ended so that all hon. Members who wish to do so can participate in them, and the Government's disastrous Employment Bill would still be able to progress through the House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It might once have been possible to take that charitable and optimistic view, but it is not a view that one could sensibly risk at this stage in the passage of these Bills through the House.

Mr. James Wallace: Can the Leader of the House cite any precedent for a timetable motion being applied to a Bill on which there has never been any suggestion of filibustering or any timetables applied to its earlier stages, and being applied solely for the convenience of the business timetable as we approach the end of a Session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In all these matters precedents develop for the purpose identified by the hon. Gentleman to ensure the efficient management and dispatch of our business in the light of the state of the business timetable when the question arises.
I realise that we had initially planned three hours for debate on these amendments, but I must have regard to the business that was already laid out for the rest of the week. When I first introduced the motion, I had to have regard especially to the much-awaited and often, postponed debate on parliamentary pensions. That has yet again had to be moved because you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that there is business of even greater importance for tomorrow. We have to manage these measures in a fashion that will dispatch them today.
Finally, I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that subject to the progress of business the House will prorogue on Thursday 16 November. Any alteration of that would, I am sure, be a great inconvenience to the House. As Leader, I feel a special responsibility for ensuring that hon. Members get a short but not entirely undeserved rest when we have completed another full and successful programme. As a member of the Government, I feel an equal responsibility for ensuring that we secure these two important reforming Bills. For both reasons, I commend this motion to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: When the Leader of the House was appointed to his new post, there were great hopes—I stress that they remain great hopes among Opposition Members—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be a reforming Leader. However, if he does not mind my saying so, he has sounded more like a recidivist than a reformer this afternoon.
What the Leader of the House is asking us to accept is baldly and bluntly that a long, complicated and contentious Bill—the Local Government and Housing Bill —should be curtailed to no more than two hours' further discussion, and that the Employment Bill, which is equally contentious in some respects, should be curtailed to a maximum of a further three hours' discussion. We cannot accept that and there is no point in disguising our opposition to what the Leader of the House has suggested.
I was touched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's desire to give us all a short autumn break. Coming so soon after a very long parliamentary recess and a relatively short working period of about four weeks, in which he has nevertheless felt obliged to introduce two motions encompassing four different timetables on four Bills, people outside the House—our constituents—will look a little askance at the apparent need for us to have yet another few days off work so soon. Of course, the real

reason for the motion has nothing to do with the amount of time that has already elapsed in our discussion of these Bills; it is simply to ensure that the Government wrap up their business—whether or not there has been proper discussion of it—in time for the state opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech. That is the driving force behind the motion and everybody knows it.
The Leader of the House will not be disappointed in at least one hope that he expressed as he will not get any foaming blood-red speeches from me about the need for the House to sit day and night to discuss legislation. In the almost 20 years that I have been a Member I have never thought it sensible to sit through the night. I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of our people think that that is sensible. Frankly, they think that it is barmy and I share their view. Although it is not possible to do so on this occasion, I hope that the Leader of the House will give practical effect to what he said about seriously considering a reform of our procedures. I assure him that he will have my support if he does so.
The Leader of the House has made some play, as he did in the early hours of this morning, about the difference in the rate of progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill between Monday and Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has already pointed out that there were significant differences in the issues before the House on those days. At about I am today I gave a rather whimsical smile when the Leader of the House remonstrated with us all and said that on Monday we had managed to get through 300 amendments, as though there had to be some daily quota of amendments of which we should dispose.
It appeared that, because we had not got through another 300 on Tuesday, our behaviour was outrageous and that was an end to the matter.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the introduction of the community charge and the circumstances in which it will be introduced, which we debated at great length on Monday, is not a significant issue between the parties?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course not. Its more accurate name, however, is the poll tax—certainly that is how it is known outside the House and outside the Conservative party. If any Conservative Members believe that their constituents talk about something called the community charge they are deluding themselves. The poll tax is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary politics, but some of the aspects of the Local Government and Housing Bill which were before the House yesterday are also controversial.
I remind the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that 20 groups of amendments—not 20 amendments—remain to be considered on that Bill. That means that 10 groups must be discussed per hour given the timetable laid down by the Leader of the House, which is equivalent to six minutes per group. In total there are about 150 amendments still to be considered. I remind the Leader of the House that, in the main, those amendments are not Opposition ones. It was the Government who came back from the House of Lords with more than 600 amendments to their own legislation. For the Leader of the House to try to convey the impression that, somehow, all this extra parliamentary time is the fault of the Opposition is grossly misleading. We are talking about Government


legislation that has been amended 600 times by Ministers, but we are expected simply to acquiesce to those changes. Apparently we are expected to speed the passage of the Bill. Whatever else the duties and responsibilities of the Opposition are, they are not to secure Government legislation—quite the reverse. The Leader of the House was on shaky ground when he advanced that argument.
The reason why we have had two timetable motions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in four weeks and four timetables on four different Bills is that he has inherited a business timetable that is in a shambles. The Government's business programme has run——

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): The only shambles here is on the Opposition benches.

Dr. Cunningham: Would the Minister like to intervene?

Mr. David Hunt: indicated dissent.

Dr. Cunningham: Well he would be wise not to make sedentary interventions or I might just take advantage of him and respond.
The Government's business programme is in difficulties because large numbers of important amendments have been made against the Government's wishes in the other place. I recognise and admit that we worked hard for and supported some of those amendments, and, therefore, some of them are welcome. However, it is also because the Government brought much of this legislation to the House in such a badly prepared state that it has been necessary over and over again, at every stage of proceedings, for Ministers, in Committee, the other place, and on the Floor of this House, to seek to change, correct and improve their own legislation.
Slowly but surely, the timetable of Government legislation has run into greater and greater difficulties. That is due to incompetent business management by Ministers as much as, if not more than, the Opposition or deliberate delaying tactics in this House. There has been no sign of any attempt to filibuster any of the legislation. That is why, until now, no timetable has been imposed on it. Therefore, from whichever angle we look at this matter, the Government's irresponsibility and incompetence have led us to this position today.
We have had 50 local government Bills during the Government's term of office. The one before us today is the fiftieth. Even after 50 attempts to get things right, the Government have come along at the 11th hour with more changes and corrections. They are in such a mess over local government policy because they have no underlying, cohesive principles about it. Therefore, they will never get it right and are unlikely to get much, if any, support from the Opposition on local government legislation.
As the House knows, I have, inevitably, had less to do with the second Bill affected by the timetable proposal: the Employment Bill. The Secretary of State for Employment. who is present, will know better than I what the major points of opposition to the Bill have been. It has not been thought necessary to curtail discussion on that Bill, which has been strongly opposed at various stages, but has nevertheless progressed. However, now, suddenly and

abruptly, discussion of it is being curtailed simply for the convenience of the Government's legislative timetable, and no other legitimate reason.
If the positions of Government and Opposition were reversed—as certainly they soon will be—and nothing about parliamentary procedure had changed in the interim, Ministers and shadow Ministers would almost be making reverse speeches. An irony of this system is that it goes on and on. The next Government, a Labour Government. will almost certainly find it necessary, because of the arcane procedures of the House, to insist on timetable motions at some time. There is no point in disguising that. It is in the interests of all hon. Members, the Government and certainly our constituents, that we get together to do something about it. Sooner or later, people who, with the advent of television, will have more opportunity than ever before, thank goodness, to scrutinise the affairs of the House, will say that the system has been brought into disrepute.
I have no reservations about opposing the motion on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I hope that the new Leader of the House will look at the matter, his own position and difficulties, learn some of the lessons and seek to reform our procedures.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) refreshingly frankly said that if the roles were reversed the same speeches would have been made. There is something of a ritual about these debates——.

Dr. Cunningham: Unless there was a change of procedure.

Mr. Wallace: Quite so. Perhaps it falls to me to call down a plague on both Houses—the Government and the Opposition are as bad as each other.
Although there has always and rightly been some outrage about guillotine motions, I notice that in a speech on such a motion in 1988—on the Education Reform Bill —the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), said that about 20 years ago debates on timetable motions lasted a full day, the House was packed for them and relationships between the usual channels were strained to breaking point. It is a sign of the times that now, when guillotine motions come along, they produce an almost empty House. The ritual speeches of outrage are made, but the usual channels appear reasonably fluid.
Be that as it may. important issues are at stake. For a change, the Leader of the House did not cite the precedent of the occasion when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) guillotined five Bills in one day—no doubt that will come up at some stage in the debate. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman responded to my intervention by saying that precedents have developed. Today we are setting a precedent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not cite a previous occasion of a timetable motion being introduced on a Bill such as the Employment Bill on which there has been no time wasting or filibustering. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and spoke on Report and I know that the debates were constructive and, on the whole, good.
The timetable motion has been brought in merely because of the deadline of the end of the Session and it will be used as a precedent for similar motions. Thus are the rights of Back Benchers and of the House eroded.
The motion provides that after certain Questions are put Mr. Speaker will take all the remaining Lords amendments together and ask the House whether it agrees with them. It is breathtaking to ask hon. Members to agree with everything when they might want to disagree with some amendments and agree with others. We will be asked to agree to them on the nod, with no attempt having been made to separate them.
I also note that the Question on the appointment of a quorum and the membership of a committee to draw up reasons why the House might disagree with a Lords amendment will he put forthwith. Nothing is said about an amendment to that motion being taken forthwith. These committees are usually devised by Front Benchers from both sides without consulting other parties. It is interesting to speculate on what might happen if my right hon. and hon. Friends and I or a member of the other minority parties tabled an amendment to change the composition of the committee. It appears that there is nothing to stop a lengthy debate on such an amendment. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would confirm that.
Many of the amendments were tabled at a very late stage in the other place. I understand that the other place resumed business on the Local Government and Housing Bill on Monday 9 October. On 6 October, 192 new Government amendments had been tabled, one of them 17 pages long. Included in the batch were amendments to the poll tax legislation. Many of their Lordships complained bitterly about the lack of time that they had been given in which to consider important Government amendments.
Not only were amendments introduced on the Employment Bill to deal with the winding up of many of the industrial training boards, but the Bill's long title had to be changed to enable the Government to do that. So another Bill was tacked on at a late stage in the other place; it has been brought here; and it is now being nodded through in only three hours. Far from having the normal proceeding of three Readings plus Committee and Report in the House and a similar process in the other place, we are being asked to pass this important employment measure with the minimum of discussion in the House and in another place.
The measure deals with the winding up of industrial training boards and will involve consequences, not least about pensions, for the staff of the training boards. It does not enhance the reputation of parliamentary democracy when legislation can be dealt with in such a shorthand and off-hand manner. We are dealing with an unusual case because we are not being asked to deal with legislation that has been considered at great length in another place. There, it was virtually passed on the nod without close examination and we are being asked to do the same.
One of the most contentious points in the Local Government and Housing Bill relates to staircasing, and in that context the Government have tabled an amendment to disagree with the amendment tabled in another place. Some of today's newspapers have reported that the Government intend to respond to the Lords amendment with a package of measures. That is important, and if the House is asked to disagree with the Lords amendment on the basis of such a package I hope that in the remaining

two hours of the debate the Minister or the Secretary of State will put the package on the record. I hope that we do not find that time has run out before we hear about that.
The amendments are tantamount to tacking a new Bill on to the Employment Bill and we should view that with some concern. Increasingly as Bills go through this House or the other place, some issue arises for which it is convenient to use the legislation that is going through. The result is that the nature of the legislation changes because of the addition of clauses. Insufficient time is then allowed when it comes back to the House for detailed scrutiny. Perhaps we can look at some ways in which such situations can be avoided. I should like to suggest a simple solution, although it is fundamentally different from our constitution. It is that the House should be relieved of all Scottish legislation through that legislation being referred to a Scottish Parliament. That would provide much more time for consideration of other measures in this Parliament.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Copeland has suggested, perhaps we should start to look at proper timetabling from an early stage. There could be a legislative committee to do that. I understand the objections to it, not least the advantage that the Opposition could be said to be giving away because they could not exert pressure of time on the Government. However, given the way that the Government have acted, that does not amount to much of a weapon.
Thirdly, the Government could put their own house in order and not overload the legislative programme. We were always led to believe that the Conservative party came to power committed to reducing the burden of legislation and to rolling back the state. However, year after year more and more legislation seems to tumble out. We have passed legislation that allows Ministers to make orders and other secondary legislation. That must make life difficult for the ordinary citizen, not to mention accountants and lawyers, although in the case of lawyers it possibly also makes life profitable. That does not enhance our reputation. As I have said, it puts more burdens on the citizen who has to try to keep up. If the Government wish to avoid that they should calculate at the beginning of each Session how much legislation they wish to bring forward.
It is a matter of profound regret that we are being asked to railroad legislation. Again, that damages parliamentary democracy. Before the 1983 general election Lord Pvm said that a large majority often carried some large problems. It has caused a profound problem for parliamentary democracy because with their large majority the Government think that they can do what they like. When it appears that there might be some procedural inconvenience they bring forward a timetable motion and use their large majority to pass whatever they like. These things do not promote the idea or concept of parliamentary democracy. For those reasons, we shall have no hesitation in voting against the timetable motion. I hope that, in another Session, we can arrange our procedures in such a way that legislation is not passed on the hoof as it is now.

Mr. David Winnick: I am not in favour of timetabling Bills from the beginning. Apart from the other arguments, it would deny the Opposition of the day


opportunities that they should have. Being a generous sort of person, I have in mind the Tory Opposition that we shall have after the next general election. I would imagine that when the Tories are in opposition, as they will be, they will not be in favour of the kind of reform advocated by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
It is often argued that the anger on the Opposition side over a guillotine motion is artificial and does not amount to anything. I assure the House that there was nothing artificial about our anger last night. It was genuine, because we believed that we were debating Lords amendments and our own amendments to an important Bill. No Tory Member could surely deny the importance of the substantive matters that were either being debated, or would have been debated had we been allowed to do so. Instead, at 11.30, the Government decided that enough was enough.
Nobody has seriously suggested that there was any filibustering. I spent 10 minutes speaking about ring fencing and related housing matters. I have looked at what my hon. Friends have said, and all their speeches were brief and relevant. What is interesting is that not one Tory Back Bencher considered it appropriate to speak, even on these matters of substance such as ring fencing and the way in which council tenants will be faced with even more substantial rent increases on top of those of the past few years.
We were dealing with the housing crisis and the plight of people who cannot afford a mortgage and so are denied adequate accommodation because over the past 10 years, local authorities in the main have not been able to build. Are these matters that can be considered minor or trivial? Are they not matters that should concern not only the Opposition but the House as a whole?
What I find surprising is a factor that came up again in Question Time today—the lack of seriousness with which Tory Members regard the homeless. [Interruption.] Some Tory Members are having a laugh, but what is funny about being homeless? What is amusing about the continuous vigil, taking place opposite Downing street, organised on behalf of the homeless by Shelter? What is amusing about so many of our fellow citizens having to spend time, often with children, in bed-and-breakfast hostels? Is it amusing that many will be spending Christmas in such accommodation? Should we dismiss that and say that it is of no great interest?
What is the House of Commons for if it is not willing to debate such serious matters as the plight of our fellow citizens, whether that is caused by lack of housing or lack of employment? Many people are denied adequate housing because they cannot now, and are not ever likely to be able to, afford a mortgage. These are serious issues, and that is why we believe that it is necessary to debate the other aspects of the Bill on planning, grants, repairs of council dwellings and houses in multiple occupation. We could not debate these issues last night, and we shall not be able to debate them at any length or at all today because of the timetable motion.
To us, if not to Tory Members, these are matters of great interest. We are not hypocrites. If we say to our constituents, when we respond to letters and to those who come to our surgeries, that these matters concern us, we mean it. When we say it during an election, we mean it.
When we say that we shall raise certain issues if we are fortunate enough to be elected to the House of Commons, we mean it. If we did not mean it, there would be no reason and no justification for electing Labour party candidates to this place. We are genuine over these matters. Conservative Members may disagree with us as much as they like, but let them not deny our genuine commitment to housing, employment and other social and economic issues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said from the Opposition Front Bench—I would not disagree with him for one moment—all Governments try to ensure that guillotine motions are carried. It would be kindergarten politics to pretend that when a Labour Government are in office they never try to carry guillotine motions. It would be wrong to say that a Labour Government would not try to do so in future. All Governments introduce and implement such motions, and they have done so for the past 100 years or so. I would not try to pretend otherwise. If I did, it would be easy enough to go to the Library and find the appropriate copies of Hansard.
We are arguing that guillotine motions should not be introduced in the way which the Government have adopted. The Government have an ample majority, but they should be more reluctant to act as they are acting. They should show respect for the Opposition's wish to discuss issues.
There is undoubtedly a difference, even if Conservative Members are not willing to concede it now, between a Government with a majority of five or even fewer be it Labour or Tory, and a Government with a majority of 100 or more. There is a feeling outside this place that this is a Government who have a strong authoritarian approach. It is considered that they are led by a Prime Minister who does not show much respect for democracy. Moreover, it is considered that the Prime Minister does not show much respect for her Cabinet colleagues. It is unfortunate that the Government are displaying those same attitudes when dealing with the House. They are riding roughshod over our rights and privileges.
I do not mess around with procedure, and last night was the first time that I used the "I spy strangers" device. I did so to ensure that the Government's supporters would remain in this place for another 15 minutes. I do not pretend otherwise. I had no wish that the motion should be carried. The Minister appears to be shocked. He should be shocked when he is confronted with genuine issues. I do not know what the Minister is muttering, but I make no apology for moving such a motion last night for the reasons I have stated.
I give a warning which follows the concern that I voiced last night to the Leader of the House. If a Government are to show such a dictatorial attitude to the House and show contempt for it, there are ways for Opposition Members —if not those on the Front Bench, certainly those on the Back Benches—to make life extremely difficult for the Government. We all know that Tory Back Benchers are eager to be home at 10 pm, 10.30 pm or midnight at the latest.

Mr. Tony Banks: Whose homes are they anxious to be in?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has made an irrelevant comment.
I feel certain that many Tory Back Benchers, unlike many of my constituents, have adequate accommodation. They are not the sort of people for whom the vigil outside Downing street is being organised. Many Tories on the Treasury Front Bench and on the Back Benches have more than one home.
If the Government are to adopt a dictatorial attitude, Opposition Back Benchers will then find ways and means of making life difficult for the Government. The new Session will begin shortly, and my hon. Friends and I are determined, notwithstanding that the Government have an ample majority, to find ways, as far as we are able, to ensure that important issues are debated at reasonable length. We shall not filibuster. We shall engage in proper debate, as we did last night. If the Government seek to deny us the opportunity to do so, we shall find ways and means. It takes only 25 Members—30 at the most—continually to make life extremely difficult for the Government.
The Leader of the House is not here, but I hope that the Minister will ask him to make that point very clear to all Ministers. We will not be fooled around with or treated with contempt, day in and day out. We have our rights. We were elected to voice our concerns about housing, employment and many other issues and we shall find every opportunity to do so.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The kindest comment that I can make on the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is that he failed to deliver it with a straight face, and I can understand why. It is evident from the number of Opposition Members wishing to speak that they intend to prove the rule that speeches expand to fill the time available for their completion. I see no reason why I should not give them a hand in doing so. There is no reason why this debate should be a one-way process, and I very much hope that some of my hon. Friends will also intervene and put the other side of the coin.
It is clear from what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that he does not consider it to be any part of the Opposition's duty to help the Government get their legislation, and I would have been amazed had he said anything different. However, I am not sure whether he endorses the shrill threats of the hon. Member for Walsall, North to do everything possible to bring the proceedings of Parliament to a standstill. I do not think that that would raise the public's opinion of those on the Opposition Back Benches.

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did not threaten to bring the proceedings of Parliament to a standstill. He said that this place works by consent, and that if the consensus breaks down, it is easy for a small group of hon. Members to make life very difficult for Ministers. The chairman of the 1922 Committee knows that, because of his long experience in the House. I refer him to my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who, as Conservative Chief Whip, often did that very successfully during the period of the last Labour Government.

Mr. Onslow: Some of us have long memories of other Labour Governments and what happened in those days. I

do not know whether, ultimately, it did any good for those who set out to keep the House up all night. I first came to the House in 1964, when the Committee stage of the Finance Bill was still taken on the Floor of the House. As I left the House for a shave and a wash at 7 am, following one all-night sitting, I was greeted by one of my colleagues who said, "Well done, you will be glad to know that two of their side had heart attacks during the night." I did not think that that was the way to conduct parliamentary business.
If the hon. Member for Walsall, North reflects on that, I do not think that he will think it to be a good way to conduct parliamentary business. It is street hooliganism on a parliamentary level—but, of course, the hon. Gentleman is a street hooligan on a parliamentary level. I hope that he is not typical of the new, enlightened and ambitious Opposition leadership. Perhaps the same ritual and synthetic speeches that we hear on such occasions from Opposition Back Benches will be repeated again today——.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are told by the Chair that parliamentary language should be observed. I resent being described as a parliamentary street hooligan; I am nothing of the sort. I make no apology, and neither would my hon. Friends, for doing my job. I am not sure that the term "street hooligan" should be used or even whether it is in order. Perhaps you could guide us on that matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should certainly prefer not to hear that sort of expression, but I have no authority to ask for it to be withdrawn at this stage.

Mr. Onslow: I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I prefer not to be provoked into using such language —but if I am, I will.
The Opposition, having filibustered, have been caught out. Having sought to burn up time in a way that has had a predictable result, they are now complaining because their whiskers are being singed. There is nothing strange or new about that. As I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, I shall not make a long speech, and I shall not give way to the hon. Member for wherever it is again.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will assure us that we have not had so many amendments to consider because of a defect in the draftsmanship of the Government's legislation. As an educated man, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan, which says:

"I'm the parliamentary draftsman,
I draft the country's laws.
And of half its litigation,
I'm undoubtedly the cause."
That quotation goes back a bit, but I am not sure that things have changed. I do not wish to be unfair to the parliamentary draftsmen, but I wish to be assured that there are enough of them to discharge their duty to present legislation to the House in a form which does not require amendment. I hope that the House can be reassured on that matter by the Minister when he replies to the debate. It is an important issue for all right hon. and hon. Members. It is a great waste of our time to have to go over legislation because it has not been brought before us in a good enough form.
Opposition Members may be surprised, but I believe that we are more likely to move towards the timetabling of Bills in Committee than many of them believe. I was not a member of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended that there should be a Committee timetable for many Bills. Therefore, I cannot claim to have gone through all the arguments which brought its members to that conclusion, and I shall not comment on the Government response to the arguments that were then presented.
However, the House should consider the likely effect of televising the proceedings of Standing Committees. I believe we will soon come to a point where it will no longer be accepted as the role of Government Back Benchers to sit quiet, while Opposition Back Benchers spin out time, however familiar with that we may have become. Government Back Benchers have also been elected to speak. The hon. Member for Walsall, North does not seem to understand that.
We shall enter into the debate. We have a precedent for doing that in the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. A number of my colleagues from south of the border were fortunate enough to be invited to serve on the Committee stage of that Bill. They felt that they might as well enter into the debate and they did. I am glad to say that they trounced the Opposition thoroughly. I heard that in Scotland, so it must be true. That will not be the only occasion when that happens.
The Opposition should understand that the cherished right to burn up time in Committee will not be theirs for ever. That will be a great disappointment for many Opposition Members whom I see on the Back Benches. We are about to enter a different dimension, and I think that it will be a better one.
The proposition that we have to endure a battering from the arguments, or non-arguments, of Opposition Back Benchers in Committee before a guillotine can be obtained seems likely to go by the board. In 10 years' time it will be an accepted part of proceedings in the House to ration and allocate time sensibly and to keep speeches short, and I do not suppose that we will get many more debates like this. It will be good riddance to synthetic rubbish.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I deeply resent the assumption that Opposition Members wasted time on the Employment Bill. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, we wasted no time.
I was looking forward to a thorough debate on some of the Lords amendments. There are 33 amendments that we have not yet had a chance to debate in the House, and we oppose 23 of them. That is a considerable number. The amendments are concerned with issues which greatly divide the two sides of the House. For example, there are fundamental differences on questions of deregulating health and safety and exploiting young women and young people, and I do not agree with the definition of equality given by the Leader of the House. I am not impressed when a former Foreign Secretary tries to instruct me on equal rights. We have different opinions about that.
I wanted the House to be able to discuss further the underlying emotion that has been expressed constantly by

the Government—the job-at-any-cost mentality. People should not have to settle for jobs regardless of pay, terms and conditions. We need to discuss the health and safety at work provisions for young people in some detail. A longer debate would have given us an opportunity to air that thoroughly and to let the nation know some of the shocking statistics for young people at work.
Young people are often inexperienced, and they are not fully mature. They receive lower wages than adults. However, the Government are repealing protection for young workers in the Employment Bill. It would end the maximum 48-hour week for young people in factories, abolish compulsory breaks and remove the limit on overtime. As a result of those changes, approximately two thirds of the 900,000 young people concerned will no longer be protected by legislation, despite the undisputed evidence that people under 25 have a greater chance of being injured at work.
The House could usefully spend time debating these amendments if we had a chance. We oppose many of them, but it is important to discuss them.
I particularly wanted to discuss our amendment to clause 9, as it would extend help to where it is needed—to many parents on incomes below the Department of Employment's estimate of a full-time employee's earnings for the first month of that financial year. I wanted a long debate on that because I hoped that I could change Conservative Members' minds. I know that that is difficult, because Conservative Members have closed minds, but one lives in hope and it is always worth having a go.
If we intend to be serious about training people to re-enter the labour market, and to make full use of their talents and abilities, it would have been useful to give that amendment an airing. We have a dearth of trained workers and if we are to respond, it is important to go into the details and to look at the evidence that suggests what a badly trained work force we have. A debate on our amendment would have given us that opportunity.
The Government have made a mess of both these Bills —although one is more disgraceful than the other. Because of the drafting of the Bill and the large number of amendments, we will not be able to discuss vital issues.
I do not want a large number of people to be forced into employment training, as it is a dreadful scheme. It is just over one year old and it was hyped up by the Government as a massive investment to train today's unemployed. I have had evidence in my surgeries of some of the distress the scheme has caused.
The evidence to date shows all too clearly that the employment training scheme has failed to achieve any of its objectives. We could appropriately have discussed that failure had we dealt with a lengthy amendment relating to training. We all know of the scheme's miserable failure to recruit the numbers predicted by the Government, and to provide adequate work experience placements. My hon. Friends and I had hoped to discuss all that in detail. I feel that we have a particular duty to debate the failure of the ET scheme to meet the needs of the unemployed, but clearly no such debate will be possible before the end of the current Session.
The Government probably slotted in the timetable motion on the Employment Bill with that on the Local Government and Housing Bill to lose us a major opportunity to discuss their disastrous training record. We


should have liked to debate the implications for the single market in 1992, particularly those relating to manufacturing industry.
I also wanted to discuss the new clause dealing with the transfer of assets and staff to the industrial training boards, which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The Lords new clause on the ITBs is simply another Bill tacked on to this one. It is disgusting; hut, if we are lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair, we may have five minutes at the most in which to discuss it.
Many other important issues need to be brought into the glare of publicity, in the interests of democracy—not least the extra powers that yet another Tory Minister has given himself. In employment and training, as in so many other contexts, we are seeing a worrying centralisation of power. The guillotining of two such important Bills is outrageous. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right: the Government are holding the House and the rights of its Members in contempt, and I wish to add my disgust to that of other Opposition Members.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder why the Opposition tried to delay discussion of the amendments yesterday. The Opposition, along with the House of Lords, have made a tremendously good job of looking after their friends throughout the country. Having lived in Yorkshire for many years, and having been involved in local government through liaison between my association and councillors there, I have had an opportunity to study the twin tracking and double tracking that went on there. The Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill, which this House has accepted, were clearly designed to ensure that those who currently earn large salaries while supposedly working for one authority can continue to work in another, as elected members. I find it rather upsetting that we allowed that concession.
I was amazed to hear what was said on Radio 4 by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett): I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. He described as "minor" the work done by party officials who earned their living in a separate authority. The hon. Gentleman must know a good deal about that, having worked as a lecturer in Barnsley while working effectively full time as a council leader. He knows how the system works. He knows that Derek Hatton. that great militant who was employed for many years as a local government officer, did not attend to his duties—indeed, he hardly knew where his desk was —in the authority that was supposed to be employing him. While being paid by ratepayers in one area, he was engaged full-time in Militant activities in another.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who worked as a lecturer for my authority in Barnsley. As a member of the education committee, I was virtually one of his employers. What the hon. Gentleman evidently does not know is that his contract contained a minimum contact time and an arrangement for any money that he earned as a councillor to be paid back to the authority. My hon. Friend was not paid twice.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that vague assurance. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has produced no figures in regard to the pay-back arrangement, nor has he mentioned the number of contact hours for which his hon. Friend was contracted to work.
If Opposition Members want to get on to names and personalities, there is a long list of them. If they want to play that game, we shall be happy to do so. We need only take the example of any Yorkshire council, particularly when there were both county and district councils. John Cornwall and Clive Betts are two interesting names from Sheffield district council and South Yorkshire county council. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), speaking as the employer of his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside, has just told us how these things are done: the jobs are in the gift of local authority members, who are able to appoint people and then write contracts allowing them to do all sorts of things.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I will not.
Well over 50 per cent. of Labour members of South Yorkshire county council were also employed either by other local authorities or in nationalised industries: that is a fact. I remember that the Labour leader of the Kirklees authority was supposedly a plasterer working for Leeds city council. Although he did not do a day's plastering in seven years, he retained his salary.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a smear campaign. If he made some of those comments outside the House, he could be taken to court on a libel charge. Let me ask him to respect the fact that people outside the House cannot answer: they cannot come in here and put forward a defence. To say that someone was "supposedly" a plasterer implies that he was deceiving people deliberately, and drawing money from his deceit. That is a serious allegation.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what some of his Conservative colleagues in local authorities have said. There is the case, in south London, of a Conservative council leader who offered a job to a Labour councillor because of the possibility that he would lose his job under this legislation. To his credit, that Conservative councillor recognised that what was afoot was a nasty attempt to get Labour councillors out when they were doing ordinary jobs for ordinary people in a perfectly legal and proper way.

Mr. Bruce: I was challenged to name names; now the hon. Gentleman takes me to task for having done so. I was also challenged to cite more examples. Examples are manifest. It is some years since I was in a position to observe such occurrences, but when they were going on I was not a Member of Parliament, and I spoke to the press outside the House.

Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I have answered the hon Gentleman's point. I am now answering the one that has just been made.

Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty. He is making allegations with the protection of the House. He has named people and their jobs—jobs which, for his


information, they are still trying to do, although he claims that he speaks of the past. His comments are a slur on the professions of those people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to use a point of order for the intervention that he wished to make. It is not a point of order. I remind all hon. Members that they have responsibilities when they speak in the House. We are dealing not with personalities but with a motion on whether there should be a time limit on the legislation that the House is about to enact.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk about the time that we have to discuss the Bill, we should remember that many issues have not been properly considered, to the great disappointment of many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
Abuses have occurred within the system, not only in Labour councils, but in Conservative and Liberal ones. One could cite examples—as Labour Members often do —of individuals who will be caught by the legislation. In recent times no one has challenged the fact that civil servants are required by their contracts of employment not to take part in party political activities. I am trying to set the record straight. Real problems occurred which caused real fraud—[Hon. Members: "Fraud?"]—on ratepayers, particularly in Yorkshire. Opposition Members attempted to delay the Bill so that they could make further inroads into the clause designed to deal with that problem.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation which casts a slur not only on Opposition Members but on the integrity of the Chair. He suggested that Opposition Members tried to delay the Bill. I am sure that you will not permit that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and nor would any other occupant of the Chair.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe there is no slur on the Chair. I remind hon. Members that there must be tolerant language and common courtesy in exchanges during debates.

Mr. Bruce: It is common currency that we are here to discuss a guillotine motion because the agreement reached through the normal channels to take two days to discuss the Bill was not observed by Opposition Members. Hon. Gentlemen are entitled to take further time, but they should not complain about the guillotine, because they did not get on with the substance of what had been agreed.
I have made my point. Although the Bill has been amended, it attempts to show that it is wrong for people to engage in twin tracking.

Mr. Martin Redmond: rose—

Mr. Bruce: No. I am about to finish.
All parties should acknowledge that twin tracking is wrong. Someone who wishes to represent the community as a member of a local authority should not expect to earn his pay as a senior officer of another local authority, even more so when he or she is not turning up to do that job or, in the case of lecturers, are not in the timetable. I hope that that message will reach such people and that they will start to work in a more moral manner. However, I suspect that

the legislation will not be tight enough and that the Government will have to return to the matter in another Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: The speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) was both disgraceful and disreputable. I doubt that he would have the courage or, indeed, the purse to repeat those statements, appending those names to them, as he did, outside the House. If anyone abuses the rights and privileges of the House, it is not Opposition Members but Conservative Members like him, who do great disservice to the House by attacking decent, honest people outside the House who cannot defend themselves.
It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members to attack local authority councillors who work for other local authorities when so many Conservative Members have directorships. I am surprised that they have the time to come to the House, never mind the nerve. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy on Conservative Benches and it is whirling round the head of the hon. Member for Dorset, South. He should be ashamed of himself.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is no longer in his place. It was inappropriate for him to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a fine example of a political thug. When a guillotine motion is moved, he plays his usual role as chairman of the 1922 Committee. He is a Uriah Heep in residence to the Conservative leadership.
The right hon. Gentleman took no part in the debate. I did not see him here during the debates on the Bill, yet as soon as the guillotine motion was moved he came here saying, "The Opposition waffled, spent their time abusing parliamentary privilege and tried to talk the Bill out." How the hell does he know? He was never here to listen. He just came to play the role given to him. I suppose that he does it fairly well, but his sincerity does not come over to me in great waves. He should have saved us his speech tonight. He did not bother to stick around to hear the rest of the debate on the guillotine motion.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend's interest in the Bill. Although I cannot swear to it, my recollection is that my right hon. Friend expressed some interest in it. Has the hon. Gentleman checked Hansard to ensure that his remarks about my right hon. Friend are true?

Mr. Banks: I would not willingly do a disservice to any hon. Member, even a Conservative Member. I sat religiously through the debate yesterday and on Monday on the Local Government and Housing Bill. There were few Members here and I know who they were. It is no great feat of memory to remember which Conservative Members were present, because so few were here.

Mr. Jopling: I repeat my question: has the hon. Gentleman checked that my right hon. Friend did not take part in the earlier debates?

Mr. Banks: I know that he was not present, so I do not need to check. I know because I was here, so there is no need for me to waste my time reading Hansard. The right


hon. Gentleman was not here. He may have wandered in and out, treating the debate as a buffet where he could pick up a little nibble here and there.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I reminded the House earlier that the motion does not relate to personalities. It is a serious motion and must be debated seriously. I am sure that the hon. Member will oblige me.

Mr. Banks: Obliging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is one of the great things that I want to do in life.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is enormously difficult to oblige me and it is extremely difficult to do so this afternoon.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. People will start talking about us soon, I am sure. All I want to do is to reply to some of the points that have been made. If hon. Members make comments, I feel that it is incumbent on me to defend my hon. Friends who I believe have been unjustly and unfairly attacked both inside and outside the House.
I oppose the guillotine motion. I am not worried very much about contempt of the House. I accept that the Government need to get their business through. The position will be reversed very soon, I am glad to say, and then, no doubt, I shall support guillotine motions. I am not, therefore, opposed to guillotine motions as such, but I am worried about the contempt that this motion shows not for the House but for the homeless in London and the nation as a whole.
We dealt on Monday with a number of issues that did not relate to housing. We dealt with local government issues and the hon. Member for Dorset, South spent a lot of time talking about something that had already been dealt with. What we have not had a chance to debate properly and that we are now being prevented from debating properly are the housing aspects of the Bill, the Lords amendments and our amendments. Many Conservative Members are prepared to close their eyes to the reality of this enormous housing and homelessness crisis.
It was wrong for the hon. Member for Dorset, South and the right hon. Member for Woking to suggest that the Opposition were deliberately dragging their feet. I could talk with feeling for hours about the plight of the homeless, both in my constituency and in London as a whole. I do not need to feign anger about that. My sincerity is not synthetic. I do not need to drag out the proceedings just for the sake of doing so. I see homelessness on a daily basis and it angers me deeply. I wanted to carry on making my contribution last night.
I accept that the Government want to get their business through, but there was no need for them to step in as early as they did. We could have sat through the night or into the early hours—until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. It is a damned sight more comfortable to make speeches here at 4 o'clock in the morning rather than to sleep on the embankment at that time, so I do not consider that I would have been deprived or that my comfort would have been greatly endangered or impaired if I had had to be here then to debate these important issues. For some reason or another, however, the Government wanted to pull up stumps and get away as early as possible.

Mr. David Hunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when his hon. Friend the Member for

Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, but he directly criticised the sort of conduct that the hon. Gentleman now advocates. Does he disagree fundamentally with his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland?

Mr. Banks: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend on virtually everything that I hear him say. I have sat behind him during the proceedings on God knows how many Bills and I have watched him see off so many Ministers of State and Secretaries of State for the Environment that I have lost count. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to do that. He has already seen off five, and I am sure that he will see off a few Leaders of the House before the next election.
The Minister said that the time may well come when Bills have to be timetabled. I was not filibustering last night and I am not attempting to do so now. I do not believe that any Opposition Member was filibustering. How, therefore, were we abusing the procedures of the House last night?

Mr. Hunt: I do not want to make too much of this. I know that the hon. Gentleman could talk and talk. I am in no position to criticise him, because I made one of the longest speeches in the House since the last war. Therefore, I do not want to enter into competition with him. However, I recall that the hon. Member for Copeland directly criticised those hon. Members who felt that one of their duties was to take the House through the night.

Mr. Banks: But that was only if it was a deliberate ploy just to drag out the proceedings on the Bill. I said that that was not the case. If the Minister had approached us and said, "Let's finish at 4 o'clock in the morning," I feel sure that he would have had a reasonably sympathetic hearing. That would have provided us with an opportunity to discuss at some length and in some detail 650 amendments. It is very difficult to set them aside, just like that. One has to make an attempt to structure the debate around them so that we can understand what is going on and perhaps, even at this late stage, prevent the Government from committing a gross folly by the passing of ill-drafted legislation. It was not a question of talking through the night just for the sake of talking, but if we had had a few more hours we could have used them constructively.
Ministers, however, did not come forward with that proposal. They decided that things were looking a bit tough and that they were not sure how it was going to go, so they got in very quick last night. Consequently, there is a whole mass of amendments that we shall have to discuss in a miserly two hours. That does not do justice to the terrible housing crisis, nor does it do credit to the way that we conduct our business or to the way in which legislation reaches the statute book. The Minister knows that. I have said before that his is the most acceptable face of extremism that has surfaced in the environment team since 1983. I hope that I have done him no disservice by saying that.
The Minister was reasonably co-operative in the early stages. That is accepted. It is not that we want to connive with the Government. Wherever possible, however, we want to ensure that debates are held at a time when people outside can hear them. In many cases, what we say in this place falls on deaf ears on the Government side and is never heard outside the House. That is a great shame, not because of the value of what we say per se but because of


the importance of these decisions to the homeless, to those who are waiting for a house and to those who are living in sub-standard accommodation. That is what this part of the Bill is all about.
It is an awful and apposite comment on the attitudes and standards of today's Tory party that virtually no Conservative Members were here last night. A few of them came into the Chamber when they thought that there was to be a Division. The rest of them kept away. I think that some of them kept away because their consciences were troubling them. They did not want to hear the arguments. The feeling abroad in the Conservative party is that, if Conservative Members do not listen to the arguments and if they try to sweep the evidence under the carpet, the problem will solve itself.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: I will give way to the representative of the Mafia.

Mr. Holt: To pursue the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, if he is suggesting that the Labour Benches are more frequently occupied than those on this side of the House, and if we were to take a count during every hour that every Bill is discussed in this place, I can guarantee that, although he individually would come out very high on the list—because I, too, am an assiduous Member of Parliament and sit here for long hours—his party would lose handsomely.

Mr. Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his remarks. There are many debates that I do not attend and I do not take part in the proceedings on many Bills, not because I am not interested in them but because they are not necessarily relevant to my constituency. However, on crucial issues such as social security, housing, education and the National Health Service that affect millions of people, including those who have been dispossessed and put in a much worse position, both economically and socially, by this Government's policies, he will find that these Benches are very well filled, because the Opposition concentrate on issues that affect working-class people most particularly. This is one of those issues. That is why, last night, the Labour Benches were well attended, but the Conservative Benches were green acres of emptiness.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I hate to take issue with the hon. Gentleman, but 10 Labour Members are present. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Bill is of much importance to the Labour party. Are we to believe that only 10 Labour Members are interested in it?

Mr. Banks: We are discussing not the Bill but the guillotine motion, which is intent on allowing only two hours for debate. I hope that when we debate the Bill the hon. Gentleman will make a speech.
It is noticeable that Conservative Members always debate guillotine motions because they want to use up time. Yesterday, we had an important debate on housing for four and a half hours, yet not one Conservative Member spoke. The Minister had the gall to complain that he had had to listen to Labour Members' speeches for four and a half hours, but that complaint should have been directed at Conservative Back Benchers and not at Labour

Members. I was prepared to sit down in the hope that I could tempt the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) into saying something about homeless people in London. Conservative Members are ready to make speeches on the guillotine motion because they want to eat up the time.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend was challenged about whether he had checked Hansard to see whether the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) had spoken on the Bill. I have done some research on my hon. Friend's behalf, and I can tell him that until 10.45 pm yesterday —Hansard is not printed after that—he had not spoken, although he had voted in three of the four Divisons.

Mr. Banks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous researcher. I pledge that, when I am a Minister, my hon. Friend will be sitting next me in my ministerial office as my personal adviser. I promise not to sack him.

Mr. Barnes: It might be the other way round.

Mr. Banks: That is not very nice. My compliment deserved a better return than that. This is a cruel place, even on the Labour Benches.
I shall vote against the guillotine motion, and I hope that, if Conservative Members have no great interest in the Bill, they will do what they did last night—sit it out and let us speak for the homeless in this country, who are not represented here and who are not looked after by Conservative Members. We do not want Conservative Members to waste the precious two hours that we have, which will not be long enough to make the case that we want. We shall have years in the future to undo the damage that the Government and this wretched Bill will do to the homeless.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to comment on the guillotine motion because I am in two minds about it. I have much sympathy with the Government moving the guillotine motion in view of last night's time-wasting. I spent four years in the House in enforced silence and developed acute sensitivity to time-wasting. Few hon. Members are more alert to it than I am.
I am sorry that the motion has been introduced because the Government are doing themselves a disservice by causing some Lords amendments not to be discussed and explained. I am thinking of Lords amendment No. 269, which, knowing the ways of the House, I expect will be cut out in the two-hour debate on the remaining Lords amendments, which will follow if the motion is agreed.
Lords amendment No. 269 deals with the vital matter —I know that this view is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House—of rural housing. It closely follows an amendment that I moved on Report, which caused me to do something that I had not done for many years—to vote with about 20 of my right hon. and hon. Friends against the Government. I was therefore most anxious to speak to Lords amendment No. 269, which is similar to the one that I failed to persuade the House to agree to in June.
Lords amendment No. 269 deals with the problems experienced by organisations that are anxious to maintain a stock of houses in rural areas for people of modest means who cannot afford to take on a mortgage for 100 per cent.
home ownership. The intention of the moves in this House and in the other place was to ensure that such a stock of houses remains available to people of modest means as a first step on the ladder through shared ownership with a housing association or other body.
I have had a difference of opinion with the Government. At the suggestion of a number of organisations outside the House, I wanted to ban the staircasing of ownership to 100 per cent. We have had arguments across the Floor of the House about maintaining houses for shared ownership, and I have had arguments with the Government.
When I failed to get my way in June, I gave notice that the Government would hear more about the issue. I said that the battle would be taken up again in the other place, and it was. Three weeks ago, Lords amendment No. 269 was debated in the other place and the Government were defeated by 111 votes to 38—a heavy defeat; hence the Lords amendment.
If nothing had happened since that vote I should be taking a poor view of the timetable motion and should be encouraging my right hon. and hon. Friends once again to take on the Government and insist that something be done for rural housing. However, that is not necessary because the Government have taken some excellent and most welcome steps to help to ensure that a pool of housing will remain available for people of limited means as a first step to part ownership. The Government do not want to ban staircasing up to 100 per cent., as I do. They prefer that part owners who staircase ownership up to 100 per cent. and wish to sell their house must sell it back to the housing association from which they originally bought it. I found the Government's preference unattractive when it was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State because it was not properly backed by undertakings that sufficient and appropriate sums of money would be made available to organisations to use their pre-emptive right of repurchase rather than to allow the house, as currently happens, to be sold into the open market and therefore lost to the next generation of young couples in rural areas to start on the first step of home ownership. I am glad that the Government have given those clear undertakings that adequate funds will be available. My attitude has therefore changed.
I warmly welcome the Government's proposal. As I understand it, the cash will be available through a separate budget. I was pleased to hear that the Government have announced that they are inviting the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1.200 in 1991–92 and 1,500 in 1992–93. The Housing Corporation is being invited to identify separately, for the first time, a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991–92 and 350 in 1992–93. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
This will be welcome news for young people in rural areas who want affordable housing without having to move away.
I strongly endorse that comment.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend knows the strong support that I and other Conservative Members have given him during this period. What have the organisations concerned with rural housing said about the arrangements?

Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend and others for their support, and I shall come to that point.
In view of the Government's welcome change of mind, I have decided that I will not oppose their intention to remove Lords amendment No. 269 from the Bill. I do so on the basis that we try the Government's option for an experimental period of 18 months. I give notice that I shall expect the Government to carry out a review at the end of that period and that, if it has not worked out, I shall return to the matter.

Mr. Holt: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted that, contrary to the parliamentary convention that a Member remains in the Chamber during the speech following his, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not present.

Mr. Jopling: That is interesting, but given the hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) without checking the facts, it does not surprise me.
I come to the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked. I am supported in my view by many of the organisations that first drew the problem of rural housing to my attention. I shall quote only the National Agricultural Centre's Rural Trust which, referring to the period since the Government's defeat in another place, said:
In the short time available, we have achieved the maximum possible with regard to guarantees concerning the financing of repurchase. We have therefore agreed that an 18-month trial period will help to ascertain whether Planning Committees and landowners—or their legal advisers—will find these guarantees sufficient.
I welcome the Government's action. It follows my efforts last year in the debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill to assist rural housing. On that occasion, I was backed by 65 of my right hon. and hon. Friends on an amendment to the right-to-buy provisions to ensure that council houses that had been sold to their tenants and had restrictive covenants placed upon them—whereby they remained occupied by local people—did not get out of that net through a loophole in the law, resulting in those houses being let as holiday homes. We closed that loophole. I am glad to say that this is the second year running when I have been able to do something to promote rural housing for local people.
Having been able to get off my chest a good many of the comments that I would have made had we not had the guillotine motion, I am glad to support the motion.

Mr. David Clelland: I shall try to observe your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, about not engaging in comments on personalities. I must remind hon. Members that the House began to engage in such matters when the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and suggested that he did not deliver his speech with a straight face. My hon. Friend is a naturally pleasant person and his pleasant demeanour should not be mistaken for joviality. At least my hon. Friends have only one face, which is more than can be said for many Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), who has left the Chamber, referred to the Local Government and Housing Bill and the activities and employment of


councillors. I do not know what other jobs the hon. Gentleman has, but he certainly displayed all the qualities necessary to become a journalist for the Sun.
The Local Government and Housing Bill is a controversial and massive Bill. It will affect the housing of people in our constituencies and the administration of local government. It will place restrictions on elected members of councils. It will attack democracy by limiting the number of people who hold elected offices and restricting the political affiliation and activities of people employed by local government.
The Bill is an important piece of legislation on which, as one who has had some experience in local government, I should like to have spoken at length. The Opposition Benches are awash with Members with considerable local government experience and many points on the Bill have already been made.
Not many hon. Members, even on the Opposition Benches, have experience on the shop floor. Even fewer have spent considerable time as shop stewards for trade unions. In that respect, I consider myself to be part of a small, exclusive group. I shall therefore limit my remaining remarks to the Employment Bill. I support the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was congratulating myself on remembering the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Orkney and Shetland when I realised that I could not remember the political party to which he belonged. However, that is by the by.
I served on the Standing Committee on the Employment Bill. I agree that the debates were constructive and were conducted efficiently and expeditiously. We covered all the clauses and schedules, and Report and Third Reading took place without any time restrictions. As far as I am aware, there were no time restrictions in the other place. It is therefore a bit galling that the passage of the Bill is to be marred by this guillotine motion when there is much more to discuss. It is disgraceful that the Government should seek to curtail debate on a Bill which the Leader of the House conceded was controversial and important. It affects workers' conditions and the welfare of millions of people. The Bill is a further example of the Government's antipathy towards working people in general and the trade union movement in particular. It further shifts the balance away from employees towards employers and is yet another example of the Tory party's master and servant mentality.
The Bill and many of the Lords amendments are riddled with cynicism. On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for women, for example, the Bill opens up the possibility of women working below ground in the coal mines. Some people might ask why I should criticise that because it is part of equality for women at work. However, the Government have not addressed the fact that conditions underground are not suitable for women and they have no intention of addressing that problem before bringing in this legislation. When taken in connection with the Social Security Act 1989, the Bill provides for women to have their unemployment benefit stopped if they refuse to take employment down the mines—although the conditions are not suitable for them—under the "actively seeking work" rule.
On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for young people, the Bill opens up further opportunities for exploitation by employers, which has implications for the health and safety of young people in employment. On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for meaningful training, the Bill destroys the former tripartite arrangements for training and hands total power, and a considerable amount of taxpayers' money, to private employers who are elected by no one and responsible to no one and who represent no interests other than those of employers and business.
The final insult to add to injury is that it is claimed that the Bill will lift barriers to employment. In practice, it will make it easier for employers to sack workers without having to give them reasons and to avoid paying proper compensation when they are sacking them.
The Lords amendments, which we are now to consider in a restricted time, cover important issues which deserve more time than we are to be allowed. They include health and safety at work, the administration of safety procedures, and the welfare and conditions of women at work. The time set out in the motion to discuss those important issues is wholly inadequate, so the House should reject the motion.

Mr. David Nicholson: As I said at the time, I greatly welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the news he brought to the House. Apart from that speech, this afternoon and last night have been miserable occasions for the House and the conduct of our business.
I want to talk about the housing aspects of the Local Government and Housing Bill because, as the Opposition recognise, I am interested in these matters. However, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) promised us more "guillotines" if there were ever a Labour Government, I want to reflect on the origin of that word.
The British historian Thomas Carlyle described the originator of the term as a "respectable practitioner". If he had not been a Frenchman, I suspect that he might have been a member of the British Medical Association. Carlyle reports that Dr. Guillotin brought forward a proposal to improve the ventilation of the hall in which the National Assembly met. Perhaps we could do with his services sometimes in this Chamber. Carlyle continues:
but greater far, he can produce his 'Report on the Penal Code', and reveal therein a cunningly devised Beheading Machine … which product popular gratitude or levity christens by a feminine derivative name, as if it were his daughter: La Guillotine!"
Carlyle concludes:
Unfortunate Doctor! For two-and-twenty years he. unguillotined, shall hear nothing but guillotine, see nothing but guillotine; then dying, shall through long centuries wander, as it were, a disconsolate ghost … his name like to outlive Caesar's.
I fear that we may recall that in future timetable debates.
I sat through most of Monday's proceedings and spoke on Monday. I can confirm the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that we debated the issues in an orderly and sensible way on Monday despite the fact that, as I reminded the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), one of the issues was the community charge, which I would have thought was a fairly major issue between the Government and the Opposition.
I have shown a considerable interest in the housing aspects of the Bill. I spoke principally on housing on Second and Third Readings and two or three times in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has dealt with one source of concern on housing. However, another important issue— which, I regret, we shall have a limited time to debate because of the Opposition's antics yesterday—is the preservation of council accommodation for old people in relation to giving them the right to buy.
I have somewhat conflicting views on that issue and I have had representations in opposite directions from my constituents. The Opposition made a legitimate point in the other place—no doubt it will be made again this afternoon—about the danger of limiting council accommodation by extending the right to buy to that accommodation, especially in areas where council accommodation is limited. I hope that the housing officer of my own local authority, Taunton Deane, will not mind me quoting from his letter. He says:
To expose these properties to the Right to Buy would increase the risk of abuse, i.e. the real motivation for purchase may not come from the elderly secure tenant … but instead the prime mover may be a younger relative with an eye on the inheritance … The effect of these proposals will be particularly severe in certain rural locations where a small group of properties (normally bungalows) are specifically reserved for the elderly.
From my constituency surgery experience, I can testify to the son-in-law situation. On two occasions, elderly constituents have come to me accompanied by their sons-in-law. In one case, an elderly constituent had a flat with stairs and because that person suffered badly from arthritis, it was unsuitable accommodation. The council was able to rehouse my constituent in a ground floor flat which was far more suitable to that person's condition. It was then discovered—I must confess that my authority was somewhat at fault for not having made it clear—that this accommodation was designed for old people and therefore was not subject to the right to buy. My constituent was angry, but the son-in-law was angrier. I am sure that the House will appreciate the concerns and issues involved. There is a danger of abuse if the earlier Lords amendment is sustained.
Others may ask why we should not extend the right to buy to elderly people. Again I must cite a constituency case. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here, because he would be interested in my next point. In my constituency and elsewhere in the south-west, including the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Secretary of State for Defence, there are a number of properties that were formerly Greater London council homes for retired people. When the GLC was abolished, there were discussions about what should be done with those homes. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has rejoined us.
At first, the idea was—and this would seem logical—that the local district council should take over these GLC retirement homes. For some reason, which I have never been able to ascertain, the Association of District Councils turned that down. As a result, the homes went to one housing association, which recently sold them to another housing association. There are a number of issues involved.
A year ago, people asked me, "Why do we not have the right to buy?" I am afraid that even if we carried the earlier

amendment passed in the other place, they would not have the right to buy because a housing association owns the properties. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate during our debate on the Lords amendments. It is an important point that I should have liked to have time to explore during our debates on the Bill.

Mr. Holt: I am not sure where my hon. Friend's sympathy lies. Suppose that one partner is old and the other much younger. Surely the older partner would want to ensure the younger's security and would want the right to buy even if he or she was an old age pensioner.

Mr. Nicholson: I entirely accept that. The point that I am trying to make is that I am being pulled in different directions because of the housing situation in my constituency and others like it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman recall why those seaside and country homes were built or purchased by the London county council, and then the GLC? It was to give elderly Londoners the opportunity to move to more pleasant surroundings in their twilight years. All that has gone now, and the sale of the houses will ensure that there is no future possibility of nominating Londoners to enjoy the benefits of seaside and country air. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that ought to be taken into account?

Mr. Nicholson: I do not wish to prolong my speech, although the hon. Gentleman has made a legitimate point. If we had been able to debate these matters properly yesterday, we should certainly have wanted to discuss this point.
I am in a dilemma, although, on the whole, I welcome the judgment of Solomon that my hon. Friend the Minister has made on the Opposition amendment carried in the other place, which he will put to the House shortly.
I understand that, as so often on these occasions, the practices in the House yesterday did not represent a sustained attempt by the official Opposition to delay business. When guillotine motions were introduced by the Labour Government of the 1970s, they were, I suspect, the result of sustained resistance by a united Conservative party to a number of controversial measures. Increasingly —we hear this from the more approachable Opposition Members—such occasions are maverick occasions and do not represent official resistance.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rise to that.

Mr. Battle: I sat through the whole debate on housing yesterday. The speeches are there in Hansard for all to read. We dealt with very few of the major issues because of the large number of Government amendments on the Amendment Paper.
Is the hon. Member now telling the House that the debates that we had on rents——

Mr. Holt: What is the point of order?

Mr. Battle: It is not a point of order; it is an intervention. Is the hon. Member for Taunton telling the House that the time that we spent on debates on rent levels, on the fact that housing benefit will now be paid out of the rents of other council tenants and on homelessness was not usefully spent? Conservative Members would not join in those debates, but the issues are of major concern


and not a moment of that time was wasted. We, too, wanted to deal with the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.

Mr. Nicholson: I do not doubt for a moment that the hon. Member made a sensible speech yesterday, as I know of his interest in these matters. I am complaining in general about the actions of Opposition Members, and about maverick resistence.
I wonder what sort of time a Labour Government would have, if one ever acceded to power, when trying to introduce measures to implement, for example, the economic policies of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and other measures that would be extraordinarily divisive of their ranks. I wonder what sort of resistance they would encounter from those mavericks, who will no doubt have increased in number. I regret that they will probably not have the powerful figure of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to deal with the matter. Fourteen years ago, he turned on the mavericks in his party and described them as
out of their tiny Chinese minds".
I have never been entirely sure of the etymology of that remark. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of discussing it with Deng Xiaoping. On another occasion, the right hon. Gentleman described the mavericks in his party in more earthy Anglo-Saxon language. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to repeat what he is supposed to have said. Those mavericks have led us to this timetable motion and restricted debate on the important issues raised by the Bill. I regret the need for the motion, but I shall certainly support it.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I shall confine my speech to the Local Government and Housing Bill as it relates to Wales. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) mentioned the importance of Lords amendment No. 269 on rural housing. I share his concern that that amendment will not now be debated. I was especially anxious that it should be debated because rural housing in Wales has been given a completely different flavour by the issue of Welsh Office circular 30/86, "Housing for Senior Management". There is no English equivalent and I want the House to know that I have raised the matter repeatedly and that I am still disturbed that, in general, people in rural areas in Wales must comply with local and structure plans but senior managers do not have to comply fully. An exception has been made in their case, and I feel that that is gross discrimination.
The Welsh Office issued a further circular, 44/87, which would have modified the original circular, but then claimed that it had not been issued. The original circular still exists. In my constituency of Gower and other Welsh constituencies local people living in rural areas cannot purchase houses because of high prices and cannot build them because of the adherence to local and structure plans while housing for senior management has been made an exception. That is an extremely distasteful and unnecessary intrusion. Young people in rural villages are prevented from building houses in the locality whereas people from outside can come in and do so.
Lords amendment No. 291 is also extremely important. I know that the Leader of the House, with his deep Welsh roots—his roots are perhaps deeper than his accent—will consider carefully the separate provisions for Wales which that amendment would allow. It says:
Where any provision of this Act which extends to England and Wales confers … a power on the Secretary of State to make regulations, orders, rules or determinations or to give directions or specify any matter, the power may be exercised differently for England and Wales, whether or not it is exercised separately.
It is a superb amendment because it would allow Wales to be considered completely differently.
The people of Wales would be delighted if the amendment were carried since it would enable two matters to be excluded from the current provisions on home improvements. First, there is the standard of fitness in terms of home improvement grants. The proposed standard of fitness for mandatory grants is wholly inadequate and falls short of present standards of fitness. A standard of fitness should go beyond that aimed at preventing danger to health and safety. It should aim to ensure a minimum level of comfort and amenity, which all householders of all tenures should be entitled to enjoy before the next century. It is important for the Government to understand that in assessing whether a house is fit or unfit, it will always be necessary to consider whether it is reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. Specific standards should be set for rewiring, lighting, heating and thermal insulation. The target standard should be at least that of the National House Building Council.
In Wales we feel strongly that works to the external curtilage of the property should be eligible for grant aid. The present system applies only to the dwelling. In districts such as the Rhondda repair work or renovation to retaining walls is urgently needed. To neglect the fabric of such structures could detract seriously from works carried out to the main structure of the building.
The second crucial area that we in Wales would like to see changed is the concept of means testing of improvement grants. In 1986 the Welsh Office published its Welsh house condition survey. It showed that in Wales 80 per cent. of grants went to people on low income. Seventy two per cent. of grant recipients had savings of less than £1,000 and 90 per cent. of grants went to dwellings that were unfit, lacked amenities or were in substantial disrepair. Therefore, it is nonsensical to argue that a means test with all the stigma attached to it and the bureaucracy required to implement and check it is needed in Wales. It is a great shame that the amendment cannot be debated.
In response to the Government's consultation paper on home improvement grants, Swansea city council said:
The introduction of means testing will create a system which will involve both applicants, council officers and possibly other statutory agencies in considerable work which in many cases will have no beneficial effect in that grant will not be payable. Although this may appear to accord with ensuring that grant aid is properly targeted, it is of little help to the hapless applicant who will be required to get detailed estimates, provide details of his household financial circumstances and be subject to a financial assessment and then be told that grant aid is not available or only available at a very low rate.
The means test will deter applications for assistance to the detriment of the long-term quality of the housing stock. Many people would prefer to let their properties deteriorate rather than submit to the examination that the Government envisage.
That problem is likely to be evident particularly among older people who form one of the main groups to which grants should be directed. Old people usually prefer to stay put in their existing environment. That preference tends to he most strongly in favour of staying in their existing homes than objective consideration of the conditions of those homes might suggest. The proportion of old people living in under-occupied or otherwise unsatisfactory accommodation who wish to move is consistently, country by country, far below what expert or objective review of the position might suggest.
In a memorandum to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs inquiry and report into the condition and disrepair of privately owned houses in Wales, page 286 of volume 2 of the minutes of evidence, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors states:
Older generations generally do not regard property as an asset and therefore do not carry out repairs to maintain the value of the asset. Most poorly maintained property is occupied by elderly persons who do not have the will to carry out necessary repairs.
An excellent example of the Welsh house condition survey's usefulness on detail is revealed by the apparent misconception of many householders about the actual state of their properties and especially the data not published in the report. It shows that 70 per cent. of those living in homes that could be classified by the technical appraisal as being in serious disrepair considered their homes to be in good repair or needing only minor repair. In view of such information, it is important that the Secretary of State for the Environment pays heed to the advice of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors when it says that an age limit of 65 should be set, above which people do not have to satisfy a means test. If the Secretary of State does not want to introduce that for England, we should be grateful if he would do it for Wales.
There are also serious objections to the details of the means-testing proposals. It is not acceptable that the calculation of available disposable income that determines the threshold does not deduct mortgage repayments. That would prejudice young owner-occupiers and first-time buyers.
Another crucial problem under the proposed system for mandatory grants is that two tests need to be satisfied. The first test relates to the condition of the property. The local authority would need to decide whether the property was fit or unfit, having regard to the proposed standard set down in the Housing Act 1988. The standard appears to be far more flexible than that in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. On the Government's admission, that would make many more properties unfit. Assuming that a property is established as unfit, the second test is then applied—the resource test to the family. Although the family's resources may be by no means great, grant aid may not be available. The local authority's predicament is that as it is aware that the house is unfit, and irrespective of the availability of grant, there is a duty under the Housing Act 1988 to deal with that unfitness.
Therefore, the applicant for grant aid could, following a visit, be refused help but be presented with a Housing Act notice requiring him to carry out costly works at his own expense—the very works on which he had sought help in the first place. It will not take long for such circumstances to become known to grant applicants. That will act as a severe disincentive to people seeking help. I cannot but think that in this means-test procedure the

Government's intention may be to reduce the total amount of money spent on grants by making it extremely difficult for people either to understand the system or go through the procedure.
The Institute of Housing summed up the argument in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, stating on page 306 of the minutes of evidence:
The means test concept envisaged by the Government, whilst clearly attracting resources towards those most in need, will not secure what the institute sees as a main objective of our older housing policy—improving poor housing conditions and arresting disrepair. There will he an acceleration of the rate of deterioration into disrepair for some of our older housing stock.
I think that I have said enough to show the great concern in Wales about the fact that the Bill has not been debated properly. Several important amendments remain to be considered and I wish that amendment No. 291 in particular could have seen the light of day and have been examined closely.
There is alarm in Wales that, while Exchequer contributions to local authorities will remain, the rate for grants is to be reduced to 75 per cent. from the present level of 90 per cent. That change will increase the burden on the community charge payer of this new system which has a powerful potential to do enormous harm to the housing stock in Wales.

Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which I rise wholly to support the Government's position on this matter.
A short time ago, the BBC invited me to take part in the programme "The Week in Westminster". During the interview, which was on the subject of community care and the proposal that local authorities should be given a new responsibility in that area, I was chided by the interviewer, who asked whether I was aware of comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who had ridiculed the Government's willingness to give local authorities that new responsibility, bearing in mind the Government's attitude—as perceived by the hon. Gentleman—towards local government. I responded by saying, "No, this Government have worked hard at reforming local government." Indeed, this Bill, which is the 50th measure that the Government have had to bring forward to try to bring to heel those parts of local government which are not performing as efficiently as they could, will successfully overhaul and bring up to date local government procedures. I said that, upon that basis, I felt that I understood why the Government were to entrust community care to local authorities in future.
The motion has led me to reflect on why we have needed to bring forward 50 measures on local government. I am minded to reflect on the fact that many local authorities seem to spend more time trying to circumnavigate the Government's attempts to make them efficient and responsive to their ratepayers—soon to he their community charge payers—than they do on concentrating on the delivery of the many services to which the Bill relates.
The Bill is also a reflection on the conduct of local government. The first part of the Bill deals with the Widdicombe proposals, which were the subject of independent assessments, consultation and vast public debate before coming before the House in the form of a


Bill. Sitting through our deliberations on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I have found it interesting to reflect on the amount of time that Opposition Members have spent trying to defend what I would term the indefensible—some of the practices highlighted by Widdicombe.
The root of the problems which have resulted in this motion is the way in which the Opposition conducted their assessment of the Bill in the first place. I could not believe the amount of time that they spent in Committee assessing the Widdicombe proposals. They spent day after day on that element of the Bill. If the Opposition had wanted to spend as much time as they now claim that they want to spend on discussing other aspects of the Bill, such as local government housing, and financial and capital arrangements, I ask whether they did not have the seeds of the solution to their problem in their own hands. They could have spent less time on the Widdicombe proposals in Standing Committee. Indeed, that was the weakest element of their case—and they knew it.
So why did they do it? Simply because they thought that there was mileage in it, because the county council elections were upon us. The Opposition were so deluded by the inadequacy of their own arguments that they found in Committee that they did not have enough time to debate in detail many of the Bill's other aspects.
I am also surprised by the uncharitable way in which the Opposition have treated these deliberations—especially what happened in the House last night—because I can remember the sympathetic way in which the ministerial team helped the Opposition. I can remember the time when, because of transport difficulties, Opposition spokesmen failed to make it to the 10.30 am start——

Mr. David Nicholson: But we made it.

Mr. Jack: Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) so accurately reminds us, we made it. Who helped out the Opposition when they did not have their stream of yellow pieces of paper containing their various amendments from the lobbying bodies? Who came to their aid? The answer is, the Government. If I may say this against my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, there was a mini-filibuster of generosity from the Government, who tried to help the debate forward. The Government fed the Opposition information. I even remember seeing a Minister cross the Floor of the Committee Room to give succour, aid and comfort to the Opposition.
However, that generosity has not been repaid in the House. We saw that last night when we were kept up because of a discussion that showed that the Opposition had failed to weigh the balance of the needs to discuss different points in the Bill. Their concentration on the delights of procedural effects overwhelmed their previous professed wish to discuss certain measures.

Mr. Redmond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the old saying, "Beware of the Greek bearing gifts"? One is always a little suspicious when Ministers give information because they obviously have an ulterior motive in seeking to allay the fears of the Opposition. Opposition Members seek information on various valid points and Ministers attend Committee sittings to give the Opposition information and to explain those points. The trouble with

this Bill is that the Minister has clearly not been able to explain those points, judging by the number of amendments that have followed.

Mr. Jack: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he referred to gifts and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been over-generous. They listened most carefully to the Committee debates, which is why, in another place, many of the assurances that they had given in this House were then acted upon. Although we had won the argument about Widdicombe hands down on, for example, the question of salary levels for local government officers, in their new guises my hon. Friends listened to those points. and, even when Parliament was not sitting, presented provisions in another place to acknowledge some of the views—they were certainly not arguments—that had been advanced by Opposition Members.
Those concessions took up time in the other place and, yes, there was a need to table amendments to seek to enact them, but the charity with which those concessions were made has inevitably put pressure on the time available for our consideration of the amendments. Surely the Opposition could have reflected on that and said, "At least we've won a few points. We'll give ourselves a slight pat on the back"; but they have not done that. They have taken up the time of the House as they did last night. That has led to this situation and to the fact that we are spending three hours this afternoon debating general views about guillotines, instead of spending three hours considering the detail of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the Opposition spokesman, was as guilty as anyone. In Committee, his local authority entertained us with some extremely devious financial practices, better known as "loan swapping". Those practices were quite beyond my simple mind. The action of that authority highlighted the reason why we need the Bill to control Labour-controlled local authorities which are trying to find ways around the Government's desire to improve the efficiency and financial accountability of local government.
There are many reasons why we need to get the Bill on to the statute book. I particularly welcome the amendments to the transitional arrangements for the community charge. I pay thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for helping to bring those amendments before the House. It was a humane and compassionate act, and he listened carefully to the representations made. The sooner the Bill gets on to the statute book the better.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief, as I know that two of my hon. Friends want to participate before the Minister winds up. I shall speak against the guillotine, the timetable—the chopper—because it is undemocratic. As a Back Bencher, I am entitled to speak against the timetable.
Approximately 600 Government amendments have been tabled to the Local Government and Housing Bill. We have been unable to discuss them in any depth, and that must be a sign of inefficiency. The Government have a majority of more than 150, but they are inefficient. They have told local authorities to be efficient and have passed Bills to achieve that end. They have told industry to become efficient, to get off its backside and to make


exports, but the most inefficient undertaking in the country is this House and the Government. The timetable is a sign of that inefficiency and there is no better word to describe it.

Mr. Redmond: Overmanning.

Mr. Welsh: It is about that as well.
There are two sorts of people in here—Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Usually, those sitting on the Front Benches are educated and those on the Back Benches are intelligent. That is the only difference. Sometimes, however, one questions educated people, but one does not usually question intelligence.
We are here to do things for our constituents. We let them know what we are doing by voting. I want the right to vote against any amendment I so desire, so that my constituents can see my vote recorded in Hansard. They are entitled to know what their Member does in the House. The only way in which our constituents know what we are doing is by voting against Government amendments. That shows our people that we are totally against Government policy and that things will be changed after the next election when Labour regains power. In all honesty I will not be stood here; another good lad from the working class will be standing where I am now.
We see the same inefficiency with the unemployment Bill. I do not claim that I want to stand here and speak about everything; I am not that sort of chap. There are lots of hon. Members who want to do that and the best of luck to them. To be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber do a good job of that. If I want the opportunity to speak, however, I should have that right. Because of the inefficiency of Government, I should not be robbed of that right. I do not always have a strong desire to speak, but every Back Bencher should have the right to do so. The timetable prevents individual Back Benchers from representing their people. That is not playing the game. The House was not meant for that purpose.
Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have said that, when we take power after the next election, there may come a time when we table timetable motions. I do not agree with that. If we have a majority of 150 and we revert to using timetable motions, it means that we are still being inefficient. It does not matter which party uses the timetable, it is a sign of inefficiency. If I could not run a Government with a 150 majority and get my Bills through I would stand the drop of York.
Such inefficiency is a disgrace. Fancy the Government having all the civil servants, who feed them all the information, in the palm of their hand. A Bill goes through Committee with that advantage, but 600 amendments are then tabled in the other place. It is impossible to see how that happens; it can be put down only to inefficiency.
I want the right to vote against amendments, and I ask for that on behalf of my constituents. For that reason and because of the Government's inefficiency, all Back Benchers should vote against the Government on this issue.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) concentrated on a specific amendment and that illustrates the argument against the timetable. A number of hon. Members have spoken about specific items which were due to be debated

later, but which have been timetabled. The hon. Member for Taunton and others should have the opportunity to make their detailed speeches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has said, they have the right to have their voices heard and their votes recorded. A section in the timetable appears to timetable not just the debate but the votes as it bundles a number of possible amendments together. That is disgraceful and worrying. It is most dangerous to attempt to stop hon. Members from voting on specific items.
The Leader of the House, when arguing for the timetable, said that the advantage to Back Benchers was that we could all go home for a couple more days. He said that that break would be of benefit to us. We have just been awarded a 10·76 per cent. wage increase, which is rather like being paid for overtime without doing it. A few night shifts now and again, when the Government are in difficulty with their Bills and when items ought to be debated, should not be beyond us. There are 650 hon. Members, but one does not expect all of them to be here all the time. A number could be present, however, to continue the debate and to scrutinise the issues before us.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that timetabling, of itself, is not something to which anyone can be opposed. I accept that timetabling may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but the circumstances attached to this timetable are particularly worrying. A number of timetables have been introduced towards the end of this Session and they have been used excessively. Those timetables have been moved not to assist the procedure of the House so that business is conducted in an orderly manner, but for the Government's convenience. The Government have got themselves into a mess because of the number of Bills that have been presented. Timetable motions should not be used for that purpose.
It is disgraceful that we have this timetable and that there are two parts to it. We have had a lot of discussion on the part relating to the Local Government and Housing Bill, but the part relating to the Employment Bill has been stuck into the timetable without any serious reason given for its inclusion. In presenting these measures to us, the Government have not respected their nature. The timetable motion is a symptom of the Government's general undermining of parliamentary democracy.
We have seen a cut in the franchise due to the poll tax legislation. A voluntary franchise system extending the expatriate vote, about which we should think carefully, has enfranchised extra people who are not part of the political nation. Petitions which are signed by people who are opposed to poll tax measures have been threatened. I have introduced a Bill about petitioners' rights in an attempt to overcome that problem. There have been massive attacks on civil liberties, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has often referred. Consultation with trade unions and others has been turned into a farce by the Government. Now, parliamentary procedures are being dealt with in a high-handed fashion. The Government have forced through measures without thinking about them or allowing them to be discussed. These are all serious attacks on democratic pluralism.
The Government insist that they can go gaily ahead and deal with a great number of issues which have some connection with the programme that they put to the electorate at the last election but which contravene traditional Conservative attitudes about the notion of the


mandate. They claim that somehow, because they came to power with 42 per cent. of the vote, they have the right to operate a sort of electoral dictatorship over us.
The Leader of the House did not explain the timetable motion in detail. He did not explain provision 3(b)(iv) about the remaining stages of the Lords amendments being dealt with in a bundle or the problem which arose from the timetabling of the vote as well as the debate. That seems to edge us nearer to fully fledged enabling legislation. All democrats should be worried about the degree to which that legislation may be brought foward, whether it is used by Adolf Hitler or suggested by the Militant Tendency.
A host of measures have been dealt with in this way in the past few days. These include the Football Spectators Bill—which was subject to a guillotine and had the ways and means provisions stuck in front of it to prevent further discussion—the Children Bill, the Companies Bill, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill. There are also massive abuses in the operation of the private Bill procedure which allows Bills to be continued in the next Session. That affects the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Many of us believe that if the Government cannot get their business through by normal procedural methods in this parliamentary Session, they should drop the measures and bring them back to start again in the next Session.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who opened this debate, although I very much agree with them. I wish to talk about the mess which the Government have got themselves into over this Bill and remind the House why we are debating this guillotine.
First, the guillotine is about a Government Bill which has no fewer than 606 amendments, the vast majority of which—all but a handful—came from the Government. Secondly, Ministers have used as a defence the fact that only about 70 are major amendments and the rest are technical ones. If we were to follow that argument through, we need not bother with Committees. All we would need to do would be to pick up as many amendments as we wanted and table them on the Floor of this House or the House of Lords. In that way, we could change Bills as much as we liked.
We have learned, not just during recent years but over the centuries, that a Government who claim that amendments are simply technical must be watched because one person's idea of a technical amendment is another person's idea of a major amendment. The Government also need to be reminded, if only for their own sake, that when they introduce legislation in such a cack-handed way they get themselves into trouble. Some hon. Members have criticised parliamentary draftsmen, but I exclude them from blame. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment proudly boasted that he had drafted the Housing Bill which is now an Act. I have no doubt that he drafted this legislation, because that would explain an awful lot. The Government have drafted this legislation and produced a mess which neither the Committee nor the House of Lords could properly sort out.
The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has much to answer for. I should warn the Government that he was brought up before the courts four or five times, each time as a result of badly drafted Government legislation. He then returned to the House to change the law retrospectively to put himself in the right. As an ex-probation officer, I take a dim view of such procedure and warn the Government that it will have consequences for them in the future. Such action is unacceptable, but that is what they have done and that is why we are in this mess. The previous Secretary of State's drafting of the Bill was ill thought out. In the past that has led to the Government getting into difficulties with the courts and that will happen again, as some of my hon. Friends have said.
In Committee, I warned the Government that they were in a mess over this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was acting as a Whip in Committee, and I said that we could manage with two days on the Floor of the House on Report, but only if there were not a significant number of Government amendments. We said that clearly. Following that, I told the Government that two days would not be long enough to deal with the amendments. The Minister will remember that I told him as recently as a week ago that we needed more time. However, that was never conceded.
Let us consider whether a filibuster took place. Without wishing to cast any reflection on the Speaker, let us consider the facts. The Leader of the House opened the debate and made great play of the fact that we finished at 12 o'clock on Monday. We did so because, although the poll tax was a highly contentious issue, we had already devoted a significant amount of time to debating it and the Government had made a move which, although not acceptable to us in full, was certainly helping out financially. The Government had moved dramatically on the subject of political restrictions and had accepted the Labour amendment.
However, it was a different business on Tuesday. I warned the Government that there would be no way of predicting when the vote would take place because the main issues of housing revenue accounts, rents and homelessness deserved and needed more time. Despite that fact, the vote on the main group of amendments was still taken earlier on Tuesday than on Monday. Therefore, we were doing well.
If any Conservative Member argues that five hours is enough time to debate issues such as homelessness, he or she should walk down the road to that group of demonstrators—organised by Shelter—who are protesting about homeless people who are sleeping out, and say to them that he or she believes that a five-hour debate on the issue is enough. It is not enough time, and to say so is an insult to those people. We know, and argued yesterday in great detail, that this Bill will increase homelessness. That is why we made so much of the debate yesterday and would have continued to do so.
Other issues which are of great significance to people include the emergency and civil disaster orders. A statement was made to the House yesterday about the rail disaster at Clapham. If we had had the time yesterday or today, what we would have said would have been of major importance. The Government are not moving significantly to allow us to give a proper response to emergencies and civil disasters.
The Government have legislated in the Bill for Scotland in a way that has not given Scottish Members an opportunity to speak effectively about it. A Scottish Back Bencher did an excellent job in Committee, but in the House of Lords the Government introduced more amendments which affected Scotland and which will be passed without going through the proper Standing Committee procedure. The Government are treating Scottish Members and the Scottish people with contempt. They are taking the Bill through with a Committee stage on the Floor of the House but with none of the safeguards that we usually have when we vote to use that procedure.
We shall probably not get to the relevant amendment, but the Government are going to wind up local authorities' ability to help people buy houses. The Conservative party is supposed to help home owners; this amendment will receive scant consideration.
Amendments dealing with houses in multiple occupation are also important. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on that issue, so we could have dealt with it briefly by picking out the areas on which they need to move further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said that all Governments use guillotines. I accept that, and I know that the arguments can be used from time to time by either party. However, this Bill contains no fewer than 606 amendments; the Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House of Lords, and to some extent the same applied here; and parliamentary procedures have been grossly abused in the structure and pursuit of the debate on the Bill.
The last Secretary of State appeared before the courts four or five times because of bad legislation and then had to change the law retrospectively, and the Government will live to regret their actions. They and others outside will have to pick up the pieces, and that is regrettable.
This guillotine was not necessary. It is an abuse of the House, and I hope that the way in which the Government have treated the Bill and the debates on it will never be repeated.

Mr. David Hunt: It is a reflection on the procedures of this House that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and several other Opposition Members spent a great deal of time during the three hours of debate expressing outrage that they did not have more time to consider the Bill, yet I am sure that people outside would recognise that we would have arranged our business much better if' the timetable motion had been taken on the nod and we had got down to the business of discussing the Local Government and Housing Bill for five hours—but never mind, let us deal with the debate that we have had.
It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members briefly of the purposes of these two Bills and of the urgency of putting both measures on the statute book without further delay. To reasonable people it would be plain common sense that we should proceed in that direction.
The Local Government and Housing Bill provides that senior local government officials should be politically restricted in broadly the same way as senior central Government officials have been for years. It provides that ratepayers who face large increases in their local bills next year because of the transfer to community charges should

receive the additional transitional protection of £300 million next year on top of the £2·5 billion already provided in rebates and income support.
The Bill provides that capital allocation should be concentrated in the areas of greatest need, not in the areas in which council house sales happen to have raised the greatest amount in capital receipts. It provides that regeneration grants should be concentrated on those in greatest need of help with repairing their homes.
The Employment Bill also embraces a package of sensible and vitally needed reforms. It removes absurd, outdated and unjustifiable restrictions on the right of women and young people to work where and for how long they want. It exempts turban-wearing Sikhs on religious grounds from new regulations on the wearing of safety helmets, and reduces the administrative burden on small businesses. The Bill provides technical changes to the law which are necessary to clear the ground for the proper training of the British work force of the 1990s.
Both Bills have received detailed consideration here and in another place. The other place spent 25 hours on the Employment Bill and no fewer than 85 hours on the Local Government and Housing Bill. I should like to pay tribute to the proper revising role played by the other place in the consideration of both Bills.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was wrong to criticise the number of amendments if he wants to encourage Government continually to listen to arguments adduced on both sides of the House—some of the amendments were tabled by the Opposition and many of them resulted from concessions to them. I agree that the Local Government and Housing Bill was the subject of more than 600 amendments but 90 per cent. of them, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith acknowledged that I had said before, are of a technical and drafting nature.
We made good progress on Monday—more than half the Lords amendments were approved—but progress yesterday was very slow and there was considerable evidence of Opposition Members being unhelpful. For instance, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) had to be warned four times by the Chair to address himself to the terms of the Bill and we were given to understand that the Opposition intended to be equally obstructive during consideration of the Employment Bill.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) may be forgiven for having mentioned the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill in the context of this debate. When he did, there was a roaring crescendo from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

Mr. Harry Barnes: The final clauses of the Employment Bill and the amendments to them deal with Northern Ireland. There was never any discussion in Committee or on the Floor of the House of those clauses and it now looks as though only the House of Lords will have debated them.

Mr. Hunt: On Monday we got through 317 Lords amendments and the hon. Gentleman is arguing about whether we shall get through 33——

Mr. Redmond: Is the Minister telling the House that he has guillotined the Employment Bill because he assumed that someone might want to talk about it? As far as I am aware, until the debate takes place and progress is made one cannot make such assumptions.

Mr. Hunt: I have always had tremendous respect for the hon. Gentleman but he must give me credit for not having made false assumptions. On reflection, hon. Members should recognise that we heard a good speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who was anxious that we should debate staircasing. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to set out the full details of that.
We have had a good debate, but let us acknowledge how right my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) were to say that there must be a better way of dealing with our business than that on which we embarked yesterday. The hon. Member for Copeland said that it was barmy to sit up day and night, but sadly only nine Opposition Members were here to hear him say it. I should like him to write a letter to reach out to all Opposition Back Benchers expressing his point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is right that there must be a better way. We all want to say good riddance to synthetic indignation, the like of which we have heard in this debate.
We must acknowledge that
The idea that Opposition Members can press their cause or win advantage or concession by elongating remarks, harrying Ministers and boring the pants off everybody, including themselves, thereby fulfilling the duty of a responsible, thoroughgoing and perceptive Opposition, is absolute nonsense."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1640.]

Mr. Robert Adley (Chistchurch): My hon. Friend is an eloquent and inventive man and I have been listening carefully to him. I had the vague feeling that the words he used had been heard before in the House. Am I wrong?

Mr. Hunt: The words to which Opposition Members took such exception were used by the present Leader of the Opposition in the debate on 20 July 1976 when five timetable motions were moved in one day. What a load of hypocrisy we have heard from the Labour party.
The Bills will remove unnecessary burdens on employers and employees alike, safeguard local democracy against political abuse, and encourage councils to improve the level of service that they provide to their tenants. The country needs the Bills enacted as swiftly as possible and I urge the House to pass the timetable motion so that they can be put on the statute book immediately.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 201.

Division No. 375]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Brazier, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)





Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothlerry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Gregory, Conal
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Rattan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Rost, Peter
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Warren, Kenneth


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr, David Lightbown.


Sumberg, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clay, Bob


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clelland, David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coleman, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dewar, Donald


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Don


Buckley, George J.
Dobson, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Doran, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Dunnachle, Jimmy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Eadie, Alexander





Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Reid, Dr John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchlitte, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


lllsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Janner, Greville
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Soley, Clive


Kennedy, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lewis, Terry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Wall, Pat


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Worthington, Tony


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing Bill

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 87

CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF RENEWAL AREA

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [7 November] on Lords amendment No. 129.

Which Question was, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 130 to 134 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry].

Lords amendment: No. 271, insert the following new clause—Removal of exception to the right to buy—

". —(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy) paragraph 11 (dwelling-house particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age etc.) shall apply to a dwelling-house as thereunder determined by the Secretary of State only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.

(2) The operation of subsection (1) above in relation to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 does not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the repeal comes into force unless, at that time, no notice in response had been served under section 124 of that Act (landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes)."

Read a Second time.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, after clause 146, insert the following new clause—

'Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age.

.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and
(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).
(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.

(4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).
(5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes.'.

Government consequential amendment (b) to the Bill in, page 146, line 3, after '146' insert

( Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)'

Lords amendment No. 272 and the Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment No. 278.
Lords amendment No. 279 and the Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Lords amendments Nos. 280 and 282.
Lords amendent No. 582 and the Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Howard: The main issue in the group of amendments beginning with Lords amendment No. 271 is the right to buy as it concerns dwellings particularly suitable for elderly people. Our amendment (a), proposed as an alternative to Lords amendment No. 271, reflects the intention of the Lords amendments that were carried against the Government. They would give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the task of making determinations to exclude from the right to buy individual dwellings that are not sheltered and that are particularly suitable for people of pensionable age. Such determinations could be made only in respect of existing housing. Housing for elderly people that was first let on or after 1 January 1990 would be within the right to buy unless it was part of a sheltered scheme with special facilities. The amendment also brings within the right to buy dwellings that are suitable for elderly people but have been let for occupation by a disabled person. I stress that the amendments do not affect the position of sheltered housing, which remains outside the right to buy without the need for any landlords to refer individual cases to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 271 and the Government amendment in place of it are before the House because there is evidence that the existing legislation has not been working properly. In England, 519 determinations were made by the Secretary of State from the inception of the right to buy in 1980 until 1987, enabling landlords to retain particular properties. Since January 1987, in less than three years, English local authorities, now relieved of the duty to bring these matters to the attention of the Secretary of State, have denied the right to buy to the tenants of over 6,000 homes on the ground that the homes were particularly suitable for elderly people.
On any view, the abrupt increase in the number of tenants denied the right to buy for this reason must cause concern. I am ready to be persuaded that it was justifiable to deny the right in all cases, but I should he surprised if that were the position. The Department hears from over 300 tenants each year who have been denied the right to buy on the ground that their homes are elderly persons'


housing. In many instances, their homes are not at all special. They might be bungalows or ground-floor flats that are, indeed, suitable for elderly people, but they are not out of the ordinary. It is clear from my post bag that many elderly tenants feel strongly that they are unfairly treated because of the way in which the law currently operates.
A timely example appeared in my post only this morning. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) wrote to me of a sad case in which a couple who have spent a great deal of money on improving their flat have been told by Brent council that it has decided, a year after the couple applied for the right to buy, that their home is a flat for elderly people. The hon. Gentleman asked me for my advice, the actions of Brent council having greatly distressed the tenants. I would not necessarily have expected the hon. Gentleman to be the strongest supporter of the right to buy, but he clearly recognises the unhappy position in which tenants can be placed under the law as it stands. If the operation of the law makes people feel that they are being treated unfairly, we need to think carefully about whether we have it right.

Mr. David Nicholson: It is outrageous that a local authority should suddenly step in and designate a home as being suitable for elderly people and, therefore, not eligible for the right to buy, but if there were to be extensive selling off of property which is suitable for the elderly, where would successive generations of elderly people find such accommodation?

Mr. Howard: There are various provisions. Grants are made by the Housing Corporation and housing associations that would deal with the problem. I recognise that my hon. Friend has expressed a legitimate concern. The difficult task in this area, as in so many others, is to strike the right balance. We think that we have acheived that by accepting the essence of the amendment that was passed, against our judgment, in another place.
We originally introduced an amendment to bring within the right to buy all elderly persons' housing that did not form part of a sheltered scheme. That amendment, which was carried in Committee in another place, was overturned on Report by what is now Lords amendment No. 271, which represents a compromise. Existing housing especially suitable for elderly people would remain excluded from the right to buy, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would once more, as he did until 1987, have the task of deciding whether a particular property fell within the statutory criteria. New housing for elderly people would be within the right to buy unless it were sheltered housing.
This subject gives rise to strong feelings. I recognise the sincerity of the views expressed in another place, which have been repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and we are prepared to accept the compromise. The Government amendment, which would replace Lords amendment No. 271, is designed to improve the drafting of the provision submitted by another place without changing its substance. The consequential Government amendment provides for the new provisions to come into force on a day appointed by statutory instrument. As the Bill stands, it would come into operation on Royal Assent and that would not allow enough time to make arrangements for landlords to apply for determinations.
Lords amendment No. 272 concerns housing that is especially suitable for elderly people but has been let for occupation by a disabled person. The Housing Act 1988 repealed provisions under which housing other than sheltered housing specially designed or adapted for disabled people was excluded from the right to buy. A disabled person, however, may still be refused the right to buy on the ground that his or her home is especially suitable for occupation by elderly people. There was general agreement in another place that that was wrong. The Government amendment that is designed to replace Lords amendment No. 271 covers the matter. If the House accepts the Government amendment, there will be no need for Lords amendment No. 272. The remaining amendments concern the right to buy in Scotland. If hon. Members so wish, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will speak to them later.

Mr. Clive Soley: As the Minister rightly said, Lords amendment No. 271 overturns provisions which were sent back to us from another place. It is important to remember that when the vote took place in another place, 94 of their Lordships were in favour and 36 against. Some Conservative Peers and Cross-Benchers voted with the Opposition for reasons that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
The Government have tried to dig themselves out of a hole by giving the Secretary of State the power to exempt a local authority from having to sell. The problem about that is that we do not really know——

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the role of the Secretary of State is something that has been introduced by the Government. It reflects the essence of the Opposition amendment that was passed in another place.

Mr. Soley: I am talking about the amendment that the Government have introduced in this place. I am anxious to know whether the Government intend to adhere to the spirit of the original Lords amendment. Perhaps they are. That is one of the reasons why I want to explore the issue. There is considerable uncertainty here and in another place about why the Government feel that it is necessary to change the original Lords amendment, which was considered by their Lordships to be clear and satisfactory. The Government have chosen to change it, and there is doubt about the Government's willingness to interpret the spirit of their Lordships amendment. That is, in part, what the debate is about. Whatever I say, I assure the Minister that those in another place will want to return to this issue when they are able to do so.

Mr. Howard: So that unnecessary misunderstanding does not linger, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position is exactly as I stated it. The changes to the Lords amendment have been made solely and exclusively for the purpose of curing the technical defects in the original amendment. They have been introduced for no other reason, and they do not change the sense of the original amendment. I thought that I made that pretty clear in my opening observations.

Mr. Soley: I welcome the Minister's intervention because I think that he has clarified the position. I am sure that the clarification will be welcomed elsewhere.
The Government have put themselves into difficulties because the right-to-buy policy has always been one legged. There is nothing wrong with the right to buy, be it for ordinary housing, housing for the disabled, housing for the elderly or housing for charitable associations, if it is matched by a duty to replace, and there is a financial structure that enables housing associations, be they charitable or not, to do so. The Government are in trouble —they faced criticism in another place, which has been repeated by the hon. Member for Taunton—because they cannot effectively replace properties that are bought under the right to buy.
In the debates over the past few years, including our debates yesterday, my hon. Friends and I have been drawing attention to the growing housing crisis. At the sharp end, there has been a diminution of the supply of affordable houses or flats for rent. The entire country is affected and the reason is not hard to find. Leaving aside the collapse of the private sector, which is not germane to the debate, well over 500,000 council houses have been sold. There would have been no problem if those houses had been replaced.
The Labour party made it clear that the right-to-buy policy could continue if it were matched in housing stress areas with a duty to replace. That duty could be achieved in a number of ways. It could be fulfilled by allowing the local authority or housing association to build another property. I shall deal with financing later. It could be achieved by the authority or association buying another property from the private market. It could be achieved also in a way that I would consider most appropriate, by the authority or association having the right to buy back when the house is put up for resale for the first time. I note that there is a nod of support from at least one Conservative Member, and probably two.
By simply allowing the right to buy without any duty to replace, in rural and urban areas alike, the Government have cut off the supply of affordable rented houses. It has dropped by at least 500,000 in the council house sector alone, and with housing association and private sector losses the total would be well above 1 million. The Government would not have found themselves in so much difficulty in Committee or in another place—they were forced to accept amendments there, and these changes are a result of that fait accompli—if they had originally introduced what the Labour party has always said was essential—the duty to replace. Their failure to do so has caused all these problems.
Why do the amendments relate specifically to the elderly? It is because, having introduced the right to buy, the Government suddenly found that the elderly and the disabled also wanted to buy. The same applies to the charitable housing associations. If the elderly and the disabled were given the right to buy, houses that had been specially converted for them would be lost to the rented sector and would not be available for future generations of elderly and disabled people. It has become clear that there would be a growing shortage of such accommodation. To prevent that, the Government would have to say that the elderly and the disabled should not have the right to buy —and consequently the right to buy would not, in effect, be a true right to buy. Indeed, we all know that it is not a

fundamental human right; it has been limited to certain groups, and specifically to council tenants in certain types of accommodation.
Had the Government said initially that the right to buy should be matched by a duty to replace, and had they provided a housing finance system to support that, the position would be very different. The Government could then have said that the elderly and the disabled should have the right to buy. but that the local authority or housing association must replace. That could be done in any of the three ways that I have already suggested. However, if the Government were serious about doing that, the finances would have to be there to support it. That is why I urge on the Government the need to reform housing finance.
If a tenant is given a discount that comes from local authority funds, there is no way that that authority can replace—not even by buying back, or at least not without losing a great deal of money. The way around that problem would be directly to subsidise the person wanting to buy, but the Government have chosen not to do that. They do not really want to help people to own their homes; they want people to buy their council houses at the expense of other people in that area who are both paying for those houses and in the queue waiting for those houses.
That means that elderly people who want to move into specially converted accommodation are now less able to do so than previously. As the hon. Member for Taunton and the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) know, because there are fewer places available, those people cannot move into that sort of accommodation. That means a growing problem with elderly people having to stay in inappropriate housing while they wait for the right accommodation to become free, but it is not becoming free because it has been bought and is not being replaced.

Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls our debates in Committee. He has described with some accuracy the position in rural seaside areas. A number of elderly people have moved to those areas and there has always been a fairly small number of council homes, many of which have now been sold. However, that does not apply to the metropolitan areas where there are large empires of council homes which, on the whole, the elderly are trying to leave for very good reasons. Relatively few of those homes have been sold.

Mr. Soley: That is an amazing statement. In my neck of the woods it is becoming increasingly difficult to find appropriate housing for the elderly. I am referring to the old Greater London council area. All the seaside homes that had been specially designated for the elderly were sold en bloc to a housing association and have since been resold. That means that those who were intending to retire from London to the seaside, thus freeing a home in London, cannot do so because several thousand homes have been lost. The problem is serious in my area, even if it is not as serious as in some rural areas. There is nowhere for those people to go and that is why they are insisting on the right to buy.
I have had letters, similar to those sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), described by the Minister, asking, "Why can't I buy my home?" A disabled couple in my constituency are asking why they cannot buy their home. If there were a proper


finance system, they could buy their home because the local authority could say that when they sold the property it would want to repurchase it. The finance system would have to allow that to happen. Alternatively, the local authority would have to buy another property and convert it—there is not a great deal of room for building in my constituency. That is what would happen in a rational system. However, because the Government have hooked themselves on to the right to buy alone, and did not think about the replacement of the rented homes that would be lost—whether for the elderly, the disabled or anyone else —they have caused a drastic drying up of supply.
One problem that is emerging in the current right-to-buy system are the cases—fortunately relatively few, but enough to be worrying—where children of an elderly couple encourage them to buy in the expectation of inheriting that home. I am not suggesting that that is done with any wicked intent; it is often done with the open co-operation of the parents who want to leave the home to their son or daughter. Nevertheless, the danger is that some parents are being increasingly pressurised. That would not need to happen if there were a reformed housing finance system that allowed us to assist those who wanted to buy, while enabling others to rent if they so wanted.
The reason that I suggested, outside the Chamber, that we would not vote on this group of amendments was that it appeared that the Government were staying within the broad parameters laid down in another place. The Minister has assured us that the changes that he has suggested are purely technical. We, and no doubt those in another place, will seriously consider that. However, I stress strongly that the way in which the right to buy has been operating is having a disastrous effect on the rented sector.
There are two major disadvantages for the elderly and the disabled. First, it prevents other elderly and disabled people from moving into specialised accommodation because less and less is available, and, secondly, it puts many of them in an unfair position because they think that they should have the right to buy, like everyone else, but they do not have it, either because it has not been conceded, because the local authority does not approve of that, or because the Secretary of State can say, "No, I do not think that you should buy it." Perhaps the Minister will find himself having to write back to my hon. Friend the Minister for Brent, East to say that the council was right and it should not allow them to buy. The Minister has taken on that duty. He will find himself saying the same as some councils—"I am sorry, we know you have the right to buy, but we can't allow it."
I want the Government to make a root-and-branch reform. We should have the right to buy, but people should be able to move between the rented and the purchase sectors. Many older people do not want to be owner-occupiers, but want to go back to the security of rented accommodation, so that they know who will repair the roof and that they will not be ripped off by the builder. If we worked on that we could turn the right to buy into something positive. It would give people a genuine option between renting and buying and would ensure that housing was replaced, and not lost from the rented sector.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need for replacement. I have a constituent who was forced to leave the marital home last week because of her husband's violence. She has three children and they are now sleeping on the floor, divided between two houses, one of which is a flat which belongs to an elderly person and does not have adequate room I received a letter from the local authority to say that it will be difficult to rehouse them. The mother will have difficulty bringing up her children alone. There is an injunction to stop her husband molesting her. However, the council will have difficulty housing her because of the number of houses that have been sold off in the area in which she wants to live, near friends who will support her. The housing shortage is causing serious difficulties.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right. If the right to buy had been matched by the ability to replace housing, and the housing finance system had been reformed, that situation would never have arisen.
It is not common knowledge—I accept that that is Labour's fault—that the Labour party has always provided council houses for sale. We did that in the 1930s to my certain knowledge. Our argument is that we have a duty to replace houses or the best ones are sold at a discount, and people are left to scrabble around for the remaining houses, which tend to be second and third rate homes. That is what has gone wrong with the scheme and what is going wrong for elderly people now. That is why the Government are in this hole.
I urge the Government to think about the possibilities that I have suggested to give elderly people the right to buy. Not everyone will have automatic access to it, but the right covers all sectors—the private sector, the public sector and housing associations. We could get housing finance right and build in safeguards so that the person who sells the house does not lose out and the subsidy goes to the person who is buying. We would be able to achieve tenure neutrality, and people would be able to move from the rented to the purchase sector and back again.
It is nonsense to force people to buy as early as possible, and to make them stay when they do not want to. For example, it is not a sensible policy for the elderly. It is ideal for people to rent when they need to, perhaps when they are young, to buy in their middle years, and, when they are elderly, and worried about repairs and maintenance, to be able to return to the rented sector. That is what we want. What we have is a chronic drying up of affordable housing for rent. For the elderly and the disabled the problem is double-edged—they are not entitled to the right to buy as other people are, and they cannot get the houses that they need. That is unnecessary and it is down to the Government to change it.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to introduce their own amendment in response to the concern expressed in the other place and contained in Lords amendment No. 271.
I believe that, because of the way in which the Government introduced their original amendment—belatedly, at night during Committee stage in the other place—they had little option but to listen to the reasoned arguments put forth.
I am happy that the existing housing stock will be given some protection by the Government amendment, which


allows the Secretary of State to determine whether an existing property falls within the right to buy. I would be happier if I could be assured that housing will be available to replace the present stock as age takes its toll. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) expressed that in his well-thought-out speech.
If we lived in a world where we could supply housing on demand, individuals' right to buy or not to buy would be paramount, but we do not live in a world like that. There is a desperate shortage of housing, not least in my area. I used to think it was quite an affluent area. I thought that council housing would be there for ever. The right to buy has interfered with that, and housing is not being replaced. The shortage of suitable homes for pensioners is worse —the supply of suitable flats and bungalows is diminishing rapidly. Lords amendment No. 271 would ensure that the existing stock would remain available for the growing number of people who need it.
We should not forget that the number of elderly people will increase dramatically. We have been told that time and time again in the context of care in the community. Many of those people will not be able to enter the housing market by buying a house which is suitable for their needs, or to adapt their existing home to meet those needs.
I am aware that it could be seen as discriminatory to deny an individual or some categories of individuals the right to buy, but to deny many people the right to live in accommodation that is adequate for their needs, and to condemn them to live, in some cases, in squalor is perhaps a greater discrimination.
Despite what the Minister has said, I support Lords amendment No. 272, which gives the right to buy to disabled persons, because I believe that a different set of criteria apply here. However, I shall add a note of caution. I hope that the right to buy will not lead to disabled people who are less well off having a poor quality of life through lack of access to accommodation which meets their needs. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I shall not follow the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) but will concentrate on the Scottish amendments. All these amendments relate to the right to buy.
Amendment No. 278 refers to the time spent in the family home by a child who succeeds to the parents' tenancy, and that time automatically counts towards the child's discount. For other members of the family, it is left to the discretion of the landlord—the local authority—whether to include time spent in the family home. The amendment seeks to remove that discretion and puts family members on the same basis as children or their spouses.
The second part of the amendment deals with members of the family who enter into a joint tenancy with an elderly relative. On their death, the family member becomes the tenant. Not all landlords consider that the discount entitlement should take into account the period of residence prior to the joint tenancy. This is particularly hard in the case of a family member who has put on a formal basis, by means of a joint tenancy, the arrangements made by the family to maintain a home.

Mr. John Maxton: I accept some of the things the Minister is saying. It is unfair that, if someone has lived for 10 years in a house with his mother, and is a joint tenant, that 10 years is not taken into account. However, what if they moved in six months before their mother died and took out a joint tenancy? It cannot be right for them to get an entitlement that goes back a long way.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a person has been living in a house for many years, it is perfectly fair. We are widening the right to buy, and we consider that it will be warmly welcomed by those concerned.
Lords amendment No. 279 relates to the amendment tabled by Lord McIntosh of Haringey in the other place. The amendment was defective as it omitted to delete reference to section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in the repeals schedule. That amendment also left in place the provisions of subsection (2). That subsection would be relevant only if the provisions of 1979 had been repealed in their entirety. Lords amendment No. 279 seeks to rectify those defects and to clarify which houses will continue to be excluded. It would not overturn the general principle.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will be interested in Lords amendment No. 280, which relates to the extraordinary circumstances in which some council houses have leases as long as 999 years. The amendment seeks to give a tenant whose landlord is not the heritable proprietor the right to acquire his landlord's leasehold interest in the house that he occupies. Such leases are prevalent in Motherwell, Monklands, Stirling, West Lothian and Nithsdale, and were often granted for periods of at least 900 years. In such cases tenants cannot exercise the right to buy, but the amendment would allow them to acquire a substantial long-term interest in their homes.
Lords amendment No. 282 would require landlords to inform persons who have applied to purchase their homes of prospective changes in the provisions for calculation of the selling price of a house. A tenant should know if his position has been improved, and if he has not completed missives he can withdraw and reapply. That duty will relate only to applications made up to the point of the enforcement of the change. The landlord is not required to produce any calculations. I therefore do not consider that the new duty will prove onerous.

Mr. Maxton: The amendments may not be of major, earth-shattering importance in relation to Scottish housing, but they require some comment.
Yet again—disgracefully—Scottish housing, which in the past has always supposedly been part of the separate Scottish legislation system, is being disregarded and shoved into what is largely an English-Welsh Bill, which makes it difficult for Scottish Members to take account of it and for the public in Scotland to know what is happening.
The Minister is a difficult man to describe as an obsessional fanatic; nevertheless, the amendments are a product of the Government's complete obsession with the right to buy, which is their only housing policy in Scotland. They entirely disregard all other aspects of public and, for that matter, private housing. Now, in three or four different ways, they are extending that right still further, locating the odd loophole which remains and trying desperately to close it. Oddly enough, I gather that some elderly people's housing is to be excluded from the


right-to-buy provisions—or, at any rate, local authorities will be allowed to exclude it. The measure to deal with long leases is certainly of some interest, but that is accidental.
What the Government always forget is that 85 or 90 per cent. of Scottish council and housing association tenants are simply not interested in buying their houses. What concerns them is that those houses are riddled with damp because they cannot afford to heat them properly, because the houses were badly designed in the first place and because they cannot be properly maintained because the local authority has not been given the money with which to maintain them. Tenants are concerned about the environment in which their houses are placed, and about ever-soaring rents caused by the Government's policy of forcing local authorities to push up rents time and again.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has pointed out, the houses that are sold are those in the better areas—those that tenants consider to be worth buying. My constituency contains part of one of the largest housing schemes in Europe, the one in Castlemilk. I believe that five houses have been sold, out of a total of more than 1,000. In other parts of Glasgow, such as Mosspark, large areas of housing have been sold.
In another amendment, which we may not reach, the Government have attempted to close yet another loophole. Glasgow district council may be stretching the law a bit—although it is acting in a way that is morally right—by saying that, having spent thousands of pounds on improving a house, it does not want tenants to turn around and say that they want to buy it. That strikes me as entirely justifiable, however; it is absurd that other ratepayers should spend a fortune on the upgrading of a house, only to find that the tenant has bought it. The court ruled that the council was wrong to take such action, but added that it could rule only in that one case; if another authority did the same, the same process would have to be gone through.
7.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, it is time that the Government came up with housing policies and housing finance systems which concern all Scottish residents—those who own their houses, those who wish to own them and those who wish to remain as tenants. That is what a real housing policy is about, and that is the policy being developed by the Labour party. The sooner that Scotland's tenants have a Labour Government to implement that policy, the better.

Mr. Cryer: Let me enlarge on what I said in a brief intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
The Government are seeking to introduce a reserve power controlling the selling-off of public housing—that is, certain dwelling houses for those of pensionable age. That reflects the fact that the selling-off policy has begun to reap the disadvantages and difficulties that Labour has always said would arise in the absence of a policy for replacement. The case that I am about to cite does not concern a person of pensionable age; I shall deal with that aspect later. A few days ago, the experience of a constituent with whom I was dealing happened to coincide with my own prejudices.
I have warned in the past that the selling-off policy implemented by various items of legislation would lead inevitably to the exhaustion of available rented housing

stock. The Minister should recognise that a large proportion of the population—it is difficult to determine the exact percentage—simply cannot afford to buy, as they have not the means for even a modest deposit. Rented housing of a decent standard is therefore a necessity if they are to embark on a life of any stability.
Shortly after the interview with my constituent began, she was in tears. She had been forced to leave the marital home with her three children, having been subjected to violence there. Her husband had pursued her to a flat with which the local authority had provided her: it was some distance from the marital home, so that she could avoid him. Having chased her there, however, he had attacked her, and she had been forced to flee the flat with her children and to hide in a local church—sanctuary, perhaps.
Having received some help and advice, my constituent had obtained an injunction in court to stop her husband molesting her. Although that had protected her from one danger, she had found herself homeless, and faced with a charge from the local authority for the month in which she had not inhabited the flat. She came to me in desperation, seeking security and assistance. She wanted to return to the area that her husband's violence had forced her to leave.
I took up the case with the local authority: it is the sort of case with which Members of Parliament frequently deal. The response came back from the local authority that she is on the waiting list. She has paid part of the joint debt that she and her husband had accumulated. She takes responsibility for the children and he does not. I should have thought that that would be taken into consideration.
The waiting list in Bradford is long, because over several years a considerable proportion of the housing stock has been sold. When I wrote to the local authority about my constituent's needs I was told that such a large proportion of the housing stock had been sold that it would be difficult to accommodate her—even though her application had considerable support—because there were not enough houses for all the people in need.
Government housing policy has not taken into account the fact that housing stocks are often reduced, as in Bradford, by the discovery of defects. The so-called Boot houses, built in the 1920s by Sir Henry Boot, were held together by metal ties which have corroded. A local authority must either build a new shell around them or demolish them. Limitations on housing capital expenditure are such that few local authorities can tackle such problems on any scale. Most have to accept the alternative of demolition, as in Bradford, where half an estate in my constituency has been demolished. Virtually no houses have been replaced.
Structural defects have also come to light in prefabricated dwellings. Under the right-to-buy scheme, purchasers have the right to sell back to the local authority if defects subsequently appeared. That protection was not unfair, but it shows that the right to buy has given rise to complications which were not foreseen when the Government embarked on the policy.
The clause recognises that local authorities sometimes invest extensively to provide for senior citizens homes with special facilities, such as ramps, baths with grab handles and so on. Such facilities cost extra money. Local authorities undertake such expenditure carefully. By and large, they are not lavish. They hit their expenditure targets far more accurately than central Government.


They do not equip homes lavishly but simply provide facilities to make life easier for people who find it difficult to move about.
If such houses are sold, it is difficult to replace them because the necessary adaptations are costly. It is unjust to sell houses with special adaptations and facilities for people in their latter years. Local authorities are faced with extra expenditure when other elderly people justifiably want the same standards as were provided in the specially adapted flats that have been sold.
The policy of selling housing has reached a point where even the Government see the need to qualify it. The Bill recognises that. It is an outrage that the Government have not required the compulsory sale of private rented property. If a council tenant has the right to buy, so should a private tenant. If the right to buy is so inalienable and has such virtue, why is it given only to local authority tenants? I think that I know why and I shall expatiate on it after I have given way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: I know the reason, too. My hon. Friend will agree that it is because public property is considered second-rate and, if necessary, is virtually given away, while private property is sacrosanct. We have seen how the right to buy has been perverted by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more perverse when a specially adapted house is sold to someone who has no need of the facilities and clears them out? They are completely lost to people who could put them to good use.
The Minister was not in the Chamber earlier when we discussed the GLC seaside and country homes. As those homes have been sold, they are no longer available to old people in London to go and enjoy the seaside and country air.

Mr. Cryer: At one time the Government recognised the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. They did so in the 1980 Bill, when they decided to exclude all dwellings designated for elderly people. It was only subsequently that they decided to cast the net more widely, with the result that expensive fittings—which we do not begrudge —were lost to local authorities and future generations. My hon. Friend is right when he says that public housing is regarded as something to be looted.

Mr. Banks: Public assets.

Mr. Cryer: Indeed, public assets.
The Labour party has always had a tolerant view of a local authority's right to sell some of its housing stock and has recognised that there is a demand to buy. However, we maintain that it should be at the discretion of the local authority. The Government say that local authorities cannot make the decision because, for doctrinaire reasons, some will not sell off any of their stock. The local authority should judge whether there is a surplus of housing. I was a councillor on Keighley municipal borough council, which had a surplus of housing. The Labour group agreed with the Conservatives that some housing should be sold. Nobody was harmed because plenty of property for rent was available to people on the waiting list, who had the chance to obtain decent quality housing at a relatively low rent, quickly. The position has now completely changed. Part of that change is attributable to the Government's

policy to sell public housing and not to allow local authorities to judge what is in the best interests of the community.
A group of Right-wing extremists is temporarily in control of Bradford council. It will not be there after the next elections in May. It is a matter of pride to them that the council is not building new council houses to replace those sold. A policy of replacement is necessary if we are to retain public-sector housing for rent. Bradford council has no replacement policy because of doctrinaire commitment. Are the Government serious about generating a housing policy that will provide for people who cannot afford the deposit on a house?
Such people may not have £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 to hand because they live from week to week, struggling to pay their bills. They do not have surplus capital, not because they are spendthrifts but because they have a poorly paid job, for example in catering, and use all their income to pay their bills. If they have young children, they have to make provision for them, which is very costly.
The choice that the Government say that they have given to people is not available to those who do not have much money. The more money one has in one's pocket, the wider the choice. If one had £50,000, one could buy any make of car—from a mini or a deux chevaux up to a Rolls-Royce. If one has only £5 in one's pocket, there is no choice. One cannot buy a car.
It is just the same with housing. If one has £50,000 in one's pocket, it might buy a terraced house in a town in the north, such as Bradford, although prices there have rocketed because of the Government's policies. One could perhaps buy former council houses for £15,00 to £20,000; the price would vary according to the location. However, if one has only £5 in one's pocket, it is impossible to find the deposit to buy a house.
There is no choice. All one can do is get a rented house from the public sector. I emphasise the public sector because the Government have acknowledged that the quality of private sector housing for rent has diminished. The quality of private sector housing is highly variable. The Government dismantled the fair rent legislation and they are preparing the way for market rents.
8 pm
In recognition of the changed circumstances, the Government are seeking powers for the Secretary of State to say to landlords, "You can't sell this property because it does not meet the criteria that have been laid down in the new clause." This is highly specialised property, with the special and expensive adaptations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred. These circumstances apply to housing in general. Therefore, the provisions should not be confined to housing that is suitable for persons of pensionable age.
No persons of pensionable age have approached me regarding the possibility of purchasing their flat or bungalow. The reason is that persons of pensionable age would have great difficulty in buying their property. If they are 70, they are unlikely to be given a 20 or 25-year mortgage; it is unlikely that they will be there to pay the mortgage over 20 or 25 years. Most of them do not have much capital. Those who have some capital want to keep it. They do not want their nest egg to be used up on repairing a property that they have had to buy. That can be expensive. The provision of facilities to persons of pensionable age to buy their dwellings is the result of a


doctrinaire policy. The Government are divorced from reality. They do not know what people's housing needs are. It is not a question of what people want. People want different things. Most people, however, need a house that is in reasonable condition.
That must seem a very modest aim to many Conservative Members. It is not, however, a modest aim to the constituent to whom I have referred. She has three children, sleeping on the floor. They are at school temporarily. She wants to move to another area, so she does not want them to settle down in any particular school. The housing shortage leads to uncertainty and difficulties for the children. They are unable to mingle with their peers at school just because the local authority may make an offer to house the family in two, six or 10 months time, depending on the number of houses that are available.
The modest requirement of decent housing at a fair rent would be very much welcomed by millions of people who cannot afford to buy their homes. I hope that, belatedly, the Government have recognised that their housing policy is leading millions of people into severe difficulties. I hope, too, that even now it is not too late for them to change their policy, which has caused so much despair.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for missing his speech. I saw his name on the annunciator in my office and came rushing into the Chamber, but he must have made an uncharacteristically brief contribution. He will be aware, however, of my long-standing interest in housing in Scotland, following our fairly lengthy debates in Committee and in the Chamber on the Housing (Scotland) Bill—now the Housing (Scotland) Act—last Session.
The Opposition have constantly pressed the Government to address the real housing needs and priorities of the people of Scotland. However, there has been no Government response. They have introduced the right to buy and they call that a housing policy. There is a housing crisis in Scotland. About a quarter of the population live in overcrowded accommodation. About 30,000 people become homeless in Scotland each year and have to apply to the local authorities under the homeless persons legislation. There are nearly 200,000 people on local authority housing waiting lists in Scotland. That is a housing crisis, and councillors and Members of Parliament in Scotland come face to face with it in their constituencies, week in, week out. Unfortunately, however, Scotland has a Government who are not elected by the people of Scotland. I suppose, therefore, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and his colleagues do not realise how important it is to deal with the crisis.
The homeless, those on low incomes and those in overcrowded accommodation might like to buy their houses but the right to buy will not overcome their serious, immediate problem: the right to rented housing, the right to have a decent roof over their heads, the right to security. In many cases, the Government are taking those rights away from them.
The right to buy, which we are extending by means of the amendments to which the Minister referred, will encourage more people who might not particularly want to own their own homes to purchase them. I am thinking in particular of former Scottish Special Housing Association tenants, 80,000 of whom are now Scottish Homes tenants.

They are worried that Scottish Homes will hand them over to the private sector. In many parts of Scotland there are bad memories of private landlords. However, they feel that because of the incentives that the Government are offering they would be crazy not to buy their houses. In the coming months and years, though, they may find it very difficult to cope with the costs of home ownership, insurance and repairs. They are almost being trapped into home ownership. In many cases that may prove to be a burden in the long term because of the dynamics of the Government's housing policies.
The right-to-buy policy makes sense for those who can afford to buy their houses, but that is not a housing policy; it is a home ownership policy. The Government refuse to address themselves to the problems of people living in overcrowded and bad accommodation and, above all, to the homeless, who are stuck on local authority waiting lists and have no prospect of obtaining accommodation. The right to buy at a discount, which the Government are pursuing so doggedly, is not a policy but a diversion.
A responsible Government in Scotland should be addressing the need for housing for our people and ensuring that houses are built, improved and made available to those who need them. We are still awaiting such a policy, and I fear that we may have to wait until a Labour Government take office here or in the Scottish Parliament in due course.

Mr. Allen McKay: This is part two of the equation that I mentioned yesterday when we were debating rents. It involves the destruction of a good housing policy by the policies of the Government and their ideological pursuit of home ownership.
I told the Minister yesterday that my local authority promotes home ownership and helps in every way that it can. It protested against the right to buy—the Minister is well aware of its reasons for doing so—but once it became law it sold its council houses.
Some of the problems that I foresaw when we were debating the Bill in Committee have now occurred. People have bought their homes but, unfortunately, have discovered that they cannot afford them. Once again, they are asking the local authority to rehouse them because of foreclosure on their mortgages. In Committee, I said, "For heaven's sake include provisions in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. Local authorities should be able to repurchase the houses that they sell." The Government did not take any notice; local authorities have been powerless to repurchase houses and they have had to be sold on the open market.
About 16 or 17 per cent. of my local authority's housing stock has been sold, but in other areas the figure is as high as 34 per cent. Not surprisingly, the 34 per cent. of the houses that have been sold are the most desirable. If the Minister wants the figures, I have them here.
The Government are now proposing the sale of aged persons' dwellings. They believe that aged persons should have the same right to buy as anyone else. From their point of view, that is admirable, but once again the policy will cause problems. Every bungalow or aged person's flat that is sold on the open market means that someone will not achieve their dream of having a local authority aged person's bungalow or flat. In the rural areas of my constituency, Airey-type dwellings have had to be pulled down and the local authority has replaced them not with houses but with stone-built bungalows overlooking the


Cawthorn Baison, which has one of the most marvellous views of Yorkshire. The value of those bungalows on the open market must be tremendous, and under the Government's policy they will have to be sold off. However, there are insufficient houses in the area and the children of families resident in the area are having to move away as a result. The more houses that are sold off, the worse the problem becomes. Not a single aged person's bungalow should be sold because it deprives someone of the opportunity of such housing, unless enough money is provided for a replacement. The Government made that mistake with council houses, but they should not repeat it with bungalows.
8.15 pm
Figures for house building in my local authority show that in 1979–80 449 private houses, 297 council houses and 27 housing association dwellings were built, making 773 in total. In 1987–88, 347 private houses, no council houses —because of Government policy—and 56 housing association dwellings were built, making a total of 403. There has been a 50 per cent. drop in house building, but, at the same time, a 54 per cent. rise in the number of homeless people.
The Government have not a housing policy but an ideological hatred of council housing. They hate the idea of councils being housing authorities. They wish to get rid of council housing and leave only sheltered accommodation, part III accommodation and accommodation that they can sell off.
The Government have ruined the history of council housing, the history of housing in general and have hurt hundreds of thousands of people, who will not forget.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords amendment:  (a), after clause 146, insert the following new clause—Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age..—
—(I) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—
(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and
(b)was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).
(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).
(5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Consequential amendment made: (b), in page 146, line 3, after '146' insert

(Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)—[Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendment No. 272 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 278 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 279 disagreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), after Clause 154 insert the following new Clause—

Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland.

In section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. (Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for pensions of pensionable age) after subsection (I) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) This section applies only to houses first let on a secure tenancy before 1st January 1990.".'.— [Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendments Nos. 280 and 282 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 269, before clause 145, insert the following new clause—

Housing accommodation

". —(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accommodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32—
32A—No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to:
(i) the disposal of land, or
(ii) the use of funds, or
(iii) the payment of grant to a housing association by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50—
50A—No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We heard repeatedly in the previous debate the accusation that the Government had no housing policy save the right to buy. I said during questions this afternoon that our planned public spending on housing over this and the next two years amounts to nearly £13 billion. Against that massive programme, the allegation that we have no housing policies save the right to buy does nothing save demean political debate and bring our discussion into disrepute.
Lords amendment No. 269 aims to retain local housing in rural areas for those who need it. We agree with its objective, but we propose to achieve it in a slightly different way. Our policy is that shared owners who own part of their home and rent the remainder should be allowed to become full home owners. The amendment would prevent either the Secretary of State or the Housing Corporation from insisting that publicly assisted shared


ownership schemes should give shared owners that opportunity. It applies to rural parishes of fewer than 3,000 people.
We recognise the strong concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House about the need to provide and retain low-cost housing for local needs in rural areas. The Government produced a repurchase scheme designed to ensure that housing associations could keep properties in rural areas in the low-cost housing sector, but there was legitimate concern that the proposal might not work satisfactorily. The Department has been working with those most closely involved to see how we can improve the scheme. As a result of those discussions, we have come up with improved arrangements which I shall invite the Housing Corporation to implement.
We have benefited from the views of a number of colleagues, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am sorry that I was not in my place this afternoon during his speech. My right hon. Friend was entitled to claim a considerable victory. I pay tribute to his persistence and to the characteristically resourceful way in which he has pursued his campaign over a lengthy period. We have benefited from the views of many in the other place, in particular Lord Stanley, Lord Carter, and Lord Vinson. I am happy to tell the House that the arrangements that I am about to describe have the full support of the Rural Development Commission, the National Agricultural Centre's Rural Trust, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association.
The first point that concerned people was whether the money to pay for the shared ownership property would really be available from the Housing Corporation when it was needed. I can give the House an assurance that the corporation will fund, on demand, housing associations that want to repurchase properties within this scheme. It will do that with the full authority of the Government from its approved development programme.
Of course, a generalised undertaking needs to be applied to the particular properties in question. The corporation will therefore make it clear in writing, when a property is first accepted into the scheme, that the repurchase arrangements will apply. Therefore, in addition to the general undertakings which I am giving now and which the corporation will give, there will be a site-specific undertaking, indicating that the shared ownership housing on a particular site is subject to the repurchase arrangements that I have described. The amount of Housing Corporation funding will normally be that which is necessary to enable the property to be resold for shared ownership, with the new shared owner buying the same proportion of equity as the first shared owner had originally bought. In appropriate cases, the corporation will be prepared to consider' making additional grant available so that the new purchaser can acquire a lower share of the equity.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. and learned Friend has said that the new owner should be able to obtain the same proportion of equity as the previous owner. Will he be able to do so at the same price as the previous owner? Many people are worried about the fact that, although the same proportion may be made available, the price may have escalated, because of the increase in value, to such an extent that cheap housing is no longer available.

Mr. Howard: That would very much depend on the circumstances in which the housing was made available. It is true that there may have been an increase in the price. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, in all shared ownership schemes, the subsidy goes to the part of the share that is rented and not to the part that is purchased. If the house were originally on land that was made available for a particular scheme at low cost, or at no cost, and were subject to a covenant whereby it should remain available only to local people on low incomes—there are ways in which this objective, which I know my hon. Friend holds dear, can be achieved—although I cannot say that there would be no increase in the price, the price would certainly reflect those special arrangements.

Mr. Soley: Much of my worry is about the market price. A housing association will, in a sense, lose a certain amount of money and need to make it up when it rebuys the property at the new market price. The Government need to be clear about this point. Will they make sure that the housing association can repurchase at the market price without losing its funds in any way? That is crucial.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that the market price reflects all the relevant circumstances. The fact that a property is subject to the kind of covenant to which I referred when dealing with my hon. Friend's point will be reflected in its market price.
Concern has been expressed that the funds that the Housing Corporation would need to operate the repurchase scheme could reduce the number of projects allowed into the scheme in the first place or could erode the amounts available for rural rented housing. I assure the House that repurchase funds will not be found from the amount set aside within the Housing Corporation's programme for rented accommodation or shared ownership in rural areas—the point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale placed particular stress.
The Government strongly support the case for an expanding programme of low-cost housing in rural areas. I am inviting the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing, to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1,200 in 1991–92 and 1,500 in 1992–93. I am inviting the corporation to identify separately, for the first time, a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme, to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991–92 and 350 in 1992–93. Neither of those approval targets will be affected by the demands for repurchase funds.
The localities to which the repurchase scheme applies are wider than those proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale when we debated this subject in the summer. The scheme will apply in areas eligible for investment under the corporation's special rural programme. That is primarily targeted on settlements in rural areas with fewer than 1,000 people, but that is not intended to be an absolute cut-off point. It may be appropriate for the pre-emption scheme to apply to properties in rural areas with a greater population. It is important that there should be a measure of flexibility at the margin, and the corporation will consider all such cases on their merits.
The scheme will apply also in rural areas other than those within the special rural programme where the site has received planning permission specifically for the development of low-cost housing for local needs and is covered by a section 52 or similar agreement. It will apply also where a private landowner has made a site available on condition that it is retained for low-cost housing—the kind of circumstances to which I referred in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
Some people have been worried by the fact that a housing association has a right to purchase, but not an obligation. They point out quite fairly that if there is a chance of an association not exercising its right, landowners may be reluctant to give land in the first place or local authorities may not feel able to grant planning permission. Where local authorities or landlords are worried about this point, the solution is to enter into a covenant and/or make a section 52 agreement to oblige the association to exercise its right to repurchase. They can do that in the full knowledge that the funds will be available from the corporation to enable the association to meet its undertaking.
We shall, of course, be monitoring the operation of the scheme. We shall want to review its workings after a suitable period. We believe that the improved repurchase scheme and the substantially increased programme for rural housing are important new elements in the Government's drive to meet local housing needs in rural areas. Those who promoted the amendment believe that as well. With their agreement, therefore, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 269.

Mr. Soley: This is an important debate which will predominantly affect hon. Members who represent rural constituencies. My complaint about the Minister's lack of a housing policy is quite correct because the amount that we invest in housing is now one of the lowest in western Europe. We should not be having a debate on the problem in rural areas if the Government had not failed to develop a proper housing policy. It is precisely because of that failure that I have been able to point out consistently over the past few years that our housing crisis is no longer primarily an urban or inner-city crisis, but a national crisis which is hitting the rural areas. I know that some Conservative Members are seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall ensure that they have time to do so by keeping my remarks brief. The fact that they are trying to catch your eye shows the level of seriousness of the housing crisis in rural areas.
8.30 pm
When the Government said last year that they planned to increase the number of housing association schemes, it sounded like good news, but when we looked at the small print we found that "schemes" meant only 600 new houses or flats throughout the rural areas of England. No Conservative Member—least of all the Minister—can believe for a moment that that will meet the needs of the rural areas. As I have often said, the Government made the fundamental error of ending council house provision as it used to exist and cutting it back until only 5,000 or 6,000 units per year were being built, without providing an alternative. As I have also often said, the private sector is unable to provide and is continuing to collapse.
The Government did a bit of an about-turn a couple of years ago by beginning to put funds back into housing associations, but even now, when additional funds have begun to flow in, the housing association movement is still not providing the same number of homes as in the mid-1970s and is only just beginning to get back to that figure. Even in a few years' time—for the moment, I am sticking to the rural areas—the housing association movement will not be providing enough accommodation to make up for the loss in the council sector. That is why the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) are in trouble in their areas. That is why people in those areas are saying that their sons and daughters cannot find anywhere that they can afford to rent or buy and that is why the local work force, such as postmen, nurses, teachers and bus drivers, are saying that they cannot find anywhere to rent or buy at a price that they can afford. That is the housing crisis in rural areas. The shared ownership scheme has a small but important part to play. Most—if not all—political parties have always accepted that the shared ownership scheme is useful in helping people to bridge the gap between renting and owning, and we all want to encourage that scheme.
I note that the Lords amendment refers to
the full equity or any specified share of the equity".
The Government are trying to persuade the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to accept what for him is a compromise. I must be careful. I accused the right hon. Gentleman on Report of not being prepared to press his amendment to a Division, but in fact he did so and he had my full respect for that. The compromise now concerns the amount of the equity and, more importantly, the small print of the deal, to which both I and the hon. Member for Honiton have referred in interventions.
There is understandable anxiety that the housing association may not be able to ensure that it receives back the full amount of money to enable it to repurchase at the price that is being asked at that time. In other words, we must allow for house price inflation because, although we are now going through a slight flattening of the inflation curve on house prices, they are still going up and we know that they will probably go up quite steeply from the end of next year. The housing associations will be asked to pay that price at that time. If they cannot do that without drawing on their reserves, as a result of the tight squeeze they are in and the fact that they are being pushed by Government policy towards private sector finance, they will try to find ways of avoiding doing that. They will at least want to hold the Government to their commitment to fund them in some way.
I notice that the Lords have tied their amendment to rural parishes with a population of 3,000 or fewer. I suspect that the problem goes wider and is affecting all rural areas. I also suspect that the problem for housing associations is the complex relationship that develops on the market price when they come to repurchase and, as the Minister himself acknowledged and as was mentioned in the Lords amendment, the question of the disposal of land price, the use of other funds and the payments of the grant at the time. The housing associations may have a deal, with the land price having an effect on that, but if the Government's price simply takes that into account without giving the housing associations sufficient funds to buy back the property at the price at the time without loss


to their reserves, the housing associations will want to avoid such repurchases or, if they are forced to do so, will do so only at the expense of further housing investment in that area.
Such investment may not necessarily be in new housing because it may be investment through repair and renovation schemes. Housing associations may deal with the problem by making up the money through other people's rents. If they do that there is a danger. Let no Conservative Member think that any extra money that the housing association has to find itself can be lost in rents without causing problems. Housing association rents went up last year by 24 per cent. We all know that they will go up again next year and, almost certainly, the year after, unless the Government change the rules that they have introduced. The housing associations are being asked to operate the shared ownership scheme, which is neither cheap nor an easy option. We must remember that the price people are being asked to pay is closer to a mortgage than a rent in most cases, which is one of the problems for people who get into difficulties changing a mortgage into a shared ownership scheme—which many of us would like to see. The difficulty is that the payments are often close to the amount of a full mortgage. Housing associations cannot pass on any surplus that they have picked up in rent without pushing up rent levels generally.
I urge Conservative Members who are interested in this subject to think carefully about the wording and to hold the Government tightly to what appears, on paper, to be a tolerably good commitment to fund the associations. When one looks at the small print, one sees that housing associations will either have to find some extra money from their reserves and squeeze their building, repair and renovation programmes or lose the money in a rent increase. If they do not do that, they will try to avoid buying back because they will not receive the funding that they expected from the Government.
I am deeply disturbed by the Government's proposal and I should have thought that it would have been best to accept the Lords amendment. It is worth reminding the House that some 111 Members of the House of Lords voted for the amendment, with only 38 against; some 10 Tory Members of the House of Lords supported the amendment, as did a significant number of Cross Benchers and a couple of bishops. It would be unwise for the Government to throw out the amendment without bearing in mind the fact that the issue attracted cross-party support in the Lords or without considering the cautionary note I have sounded. I advise the House to agree with the Lords amendment.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), which many of us have voiced. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Londsdale (Mr. Jopling), who brought this matter to our attention and pursued it in a proper and reasonable manner. We have been able to show the degree of flexibility of Government policy and of Government Ministers, which many of us have always believed to exist, although Governments are frequently not given credit for being flexible. We have certainly got much further with the Government than would have appeared obvious from the then Secretary of State's reply on a certain night, which did not even seem to understand the problem, let alone begin to meet it.
The Government's solution has gone through the hoops—it has been closely examined by the Country Landowners Association and by the National Farmers Union. A Minister who can get those two bodies together and persuade them to welcome and agree on recommendations is not doing badly, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on having achieved that. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the solution should be monitored. We must make certain that it does what the Government and what those of us who have been pressing them want it to do.
The decrease in the amount of local housing in agricultural areas is a major worry, as is now accepted by everybody and by the Government. The level of financing suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister slightly concerns me. The Opposition have a point that it may not be enough to meet the problems. One great difficulty is that in some constituencies—Honiton is a prime example—homes which in the past have always been established as agricultural cottages are now being snapped up by people from the midlands and elsewhere for use as retirement homes. A host of housing is being taken out of circulation that would previously never have been used for anything other than homes for those working in agriculture.
The amount of assistance that may be necessary to sustain homes in agricultural areas needs to be monitored closely and I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give us an assurance that that will happen.
I have one other question, with which my hon. and learned Friend did not deal, and which goes wider than low-cost agricultural housing. East Devon district council is very concerned about some of the restrictions that have been placed on it. The local authority purchased land a number of years ago at a reasonable price, very much lower than the market value, yet it is being forced to sell to housing associations at market prices. The housing associations then increase the cost of the housing to a level far higher than the local authority would wish. The local authority has applied to the Department, which has told it that it will have to sell in accordance with the market valuation of the land rather than at its purchase price. The ratepayers would in any case have got back the money spent on the purchase and it seems to me foolish that at a time when we are trying to encourage the provision of low-cost housing and starter homes the Ministry should insist that local authorities, which are in a position o provide low-cost land for such premises, should inflate the price of the land and sell it at market value. That may be to the benefit of the ratepayers, but it is of no benefit in trying to achieve what the local authorities and most people in the area would want—the provision of low-cost housing and starter homes. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will pursue that case with me..
I urge my hon. and learned Friend to express our gratitude to those in the other place for pursuing our ideas and translating them into Lords amendments. Without the Lords, we might not have had such an excellent statement from the Government. I am happy to urge my hon. Friends to accept that statement so long as it is understood that the provision will be monitored over the next two or three years to ensure that it achieves the objectives that the Minister has outlined. If that can be done, we shall have achieved a considerable victory.

Mr. Fearn: I am happy to add my own support and that of my party to the support already voiced for Lords amendment No. 269. I should have liked it to apply much more widely. The fact that it refers to rural parishes with populations of 3,000 or fewer makes it a moderate move. I hope that Conservative Members will join many of their colleagues in the other place and agree to the amendment.
As the House knows, the amendment received overwhelming support from all parties in the other place, whose members are knowledgeable about the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas. Many of their Lordships have spent much of their lives helping to provide homes for those who can least afford them. It is the provision of land —at its agricultural rather than its development value—by some of the Lords that makes some low-cost schemes possible. They have the interests of their community at heart, and we should do well to heed their expert advice. Many housing groups also agree with Lords amendment No. 269. Unfortunately, Ministers do not have a reputation for taking kindly to outside advice, especially if it is given to someone else.
It may be admirable for the Government to claim that they are standing by the fundamental principle of their housing policy, which is the right to home ownership. But such a policy becomes somewhat dogmatic and foolhardy if it deprives hundreds, if not thousands, of people of the opportunity ever to have a home of their own. The policy is even more foolhardy if it leads to the devastation of whole communities, and that could still happen.
I note that, by trebling the number of low-cost homes to be built in rural areas, the Government have recognised at least some of the problems, and that they have attempted to alleviate them by giving the housing associations the first right to buy. The fact that that right can only be exercised if they buy at open market prices will, as we heard, result in their being unable to buy, so the use of the houses will be lost to local people on low incomes.
Claims that funds will be available for that purpose —for all houses once they have been accepted into the scheme—should be taken with a pinch of salt. The scheme is cash-limited. The Government are the least likely people to agree to an open-ended project. Housing associations wishing to apply for a grant from the Housing Corporation to provide rural low-cost housing will still have to compete with all the others.
Homes will still be sold on the open market to people outside the community, and landowners, including some of their Lordships, the Churches and others, will be reluctant to make the land available, in spite of the Minister's statement about covenants. I did not quite understand that statement, incidentally. That will make it impossible for low-cost housing schemes to get off the ground in the first place.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely the whole point of the covenant is that they will be prepared to sell the land with that assurance.

Mr. Fearn: Being a Conservative Member, the hon. Lady may have understood what the Minister said, but I do not think that it was clear. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point later.
Those affected are often vital to the community. They include nurses, farm workers and now even teachers.

Unless the House agrees to the amendment as it stands, the housing blight in rural areas will not improve and the House will again preside over the break-up of many rural communities.

Mr. Jopling: I must be losing my touch for judging the pace of progress of the business of the House. I was convinced during the debate on the timetable motion that there would not be time to discuss Lords amendment No. 269. Hence I made most of my remarks during the debate on the timetable motion, in hopeful anticipation of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would say. Now, having heard what he said, I shall add one or two remarks to supplement what I said earlier.

Mr. David Nicholson: Would my right hon. Friend care to note the pressure on the Labour Benches yesterday during the debate and the pressure now?

Mr. Jopling: There is one Labour Back-Bench Member present and we are delighted to see him.

Mr. George Howarth: rose——

Mr. Jopling: I must get on.
I am grateful for the kind remarks made about me and those who have supported me. I still believe that a better solution would have been that in the amendment. However, I do not intend to press that tonight, because the Government have a perfectly fair point. They have suggested, and it was recommended to me, that their solution should be tried for a little time. Therefore, I am happy to see how it works for 18 months and for us then to come back to it. I am grateful that the Government have said that they will review the matter. We shall have to do that.
The Government have given us the assurances that they back the scheme which the previous Secretary of State elaborated in June. They have said that there are guarantees of adequate repurchase funds and that the scheme for repurchase will be available in the majority of rural areas. I welcome also the promise of increases in the rural rented and shared ownership programmes that the Minister has explained to us. We have the basis for a helpful experiment. I welcome the efforts that I know that Government have made to meet the strong points that have been made here and in another place. They have worked extremely hard to help us.
We will have to see how the experiment works over the next 18 months, but the House is aware that I believe that the problems of rural housing amount to a crusade. I shall return to other problem arising on that issue over the months and years ahead. One of the problemss is with local authorities. We may have to return to that but there are other matters that we shall wish to discuss.
This is one of the most important issues with which hon. Members should be dealing and, on that basis, I have advised all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been good enough to support me in the past few months not to press our objections to the Government's intentions tonight. Therefore, I recommend that they should support the Government and the motion before us.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As the sponsor of the early-day motion on rural housing in the previous Session of Parliament, I should like to take this opportunity to say


two things to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. First, I should like to pay tribute to him for listening to the plea from the countryside on this key issue and congratulate him on the concessions that he is making tonight. Secondly, he will not be surprised to hear me say that we shall be wanting to review progress during the next 18 months or so to see that the measure alleviates the problems.

Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I express my gratitude to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their remarks. I wish to respond briefly to two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). First, on the availability of resources, it is important to remember that, because the shares that are purchased have to be purchased at market value, whatever that is, the difference between the market value—the funds from which go to the housing association—and the cost of repurchase, is not as great as it might at first appear.
Secondly, I am looking at the point raised about the desire of some local authorities to make land available to housing associations at less than market price. I understand the problems to which that has given rise, and I and my Department are studying them. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Soley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I should have learnt my lesson. We have just had a clear demonstration that it is always a mistake to be generous to the Conservative party. I said that I would give time to Conservative Members to speak on rural housing as we know that that issue is hurting them much more than the Labour party because of the distribution of seats. Clearly, there will be fewer Labour Members in a debate of this nature because we have fewer rural Members. We need to and shall put that right. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) jumped up to point out that there are few Labour Back Benchers here. What does he expect? Why should I ever again give Conservative Members time to debate the issue? I could have spent much more time on this and future matters, and I will do so if necessary.
I am troubled also by the way in which the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that he wanted to start a crusade on the issue. I welcome that, but I am more than a little puzzled that he is recommending that all his right hon. and hon. Friends should vote with the Government on what he sees as a watered down version of the Lords amendment, which is what he wanted initially. Now he is saying, "Let us make the crusade a bit weaker and lay down our swords for a while." He is urging them to make the crusade weaker in case they win.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should remember what I said in the timetable debate. The advice from the majority of the organisations which suggested those changes earlier in the year is that we should not object tonight to the Government's proposal and that we should let the experiment run.

Mr. Soley: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the stronger position recommended by Members of the House of Lords from all parties—including the Conservative party—he will vote with us. It is as simple as that. If the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is

going to have a crusade on this issue—I agree that it deserves one—could he widen it to join the crusade on housing in general? If there is a problem with housing in rural areas in terms of shared ownership, by God there is a problem with rented accommodation in all areas.
There is also a desperate problem for those people who are trying to buy. In the Conservative heartlands such as east Sussex—one of the richest areas in the country—67 per cent. of the people who do not own their own homes◦ at present cannot afford to buy property there. There is a similar percentage—just over 60 per cent.—in Hampshire. In other counties in that area, over 50 per cent. of those who do not already own their own home cannot afford to buy. Furthermore, they cannot afford to rent, for all the reasons that I spelled out earlier.
The Minister attempted to sell to his hon. Friends the idea that somehow or other the changes that he is making —although less effective than those suggested by the Lords —will considerably help the shared ownership schemes in rural areas. I accept that they will help at the margins, but I do not accept that the Minister has faced up to the problem in both the rented and purchase sectors that I put to him earlier. Until the Minister does something about the housing finance mess that the Government have got themselves into, housing associations will never be able to provide the necessary number of homes in rural areas that are affordable either for renting or shared ownership because they will not have the necessary resources.
9 pm
The Government are in difficulties on this point for two reasons. First, they want the housing association movement to use more private sector money and are therefore squeezing Government grants. The House will remember that the Government went through some uncertainty a couple of years ago about whether housing associations were or were not in the public sector. My view is that they are clearly in the public sector, but that does not rule out the possibility that they can, or indeed should, look for private money. I have no objection to that. However, we should not kid ourselves that the housing associations are anything other than in the public sector.
If we are to enable housing associations to provide for the difference that was lost because of the cuts made in the council sector, we must increase the amount of money available to them and reform housing finance. What one must not do—the Government are busy doing this—is to make housing associations take over existing council housing. When a housing association in a rural area—especially in the south where this practice is now becoming quite common—seeks to take over council housing, usually at the request of a Conservative-controlled council, not one single house is added to the rented or purchase stock. It simply changes the management. However, the cost and the bureaucratic problems involved mean that housing associations spend less time on shared ownership schemes, on providing affordable housing or on doing the land deals that are necessary if they are to get some low-cost land, and that in turn compounds the Government's problem.
Housing associations are still unable to provide the necessary accommodation. That is why Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Taunton—the latter of whom I shall try to tempt back on board although he has had the audacity to try to bite the hand that feeds him—are getting into


trouble. I advise them that this is the tip of the iceberg. I am aware that that phrase is unfortunate in view of recent history, but this really is the tip of the iceberg.
Unless the Government deliver a housing policy that provides affordable accommodation in the areas represented by Conservative Members, messing around with shared ownership schemes such as this will not help to solve their problems. Conservative Members will still find many of their constituents knocking on their doors, saying, "Where is my son or daughter going to live? Where are the local workers going to live?" I advise those hon. Members that that will continue.
Finally, I am struck by a headline that I have seen this evening, which reads
Thatcher's plan to save the world".
Apparently the Prime Minister addressed the United Nations with two people standing by wearing white coats. I wish that she had first directed her attention to the housing crisis that she has created here. If she wants to ignore the homeless kids on our streets and the problems in the inner cities, okay, but she should at least address herself to the Conservative areas where people can no longer afford either to rent or to buy.
Many of the homeless kids on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow have come from rural areas. They are not necessarily inner-city kids. According to the Centrepoint study, about 40 per cent. come from outside London. Many come from areas represented by Conservative Members who, sadly, do not meet such people. Although Conservative Members had an opportunity to do so today, to the best of my knowledge only one Conservative Member went, but all credit to him for doing so. I wish that Conservative Members would talk to those kids, because many of them come from their areas. They have moved to London and to other cities because their local housing associations cannot deliver.
This vote is important for the rural areas. There is much more about which I would dearly love to have spoken, but I have had to leave those topics out because the Government have chosen not to allow us to do so. That is their choice. On this vote, more than any other, Conservative Members should be in the Lobby with us rather than helping to water down the famous crusade that has been discovered suddenly by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
There is nothing convincing about a crusade when its leaders presumably whip up the troops for action, then, when they are ready to go, turn around and say, "Okay, sit down again, fellas. We have decided not to sail for the Holy Land today; we shall sail in a couple of years when we have seen what the Government have delivered". That is some crusade. It is not convincing and I do not think it will convince the electorate in the rural areas.

Question put,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided:Ayes 232, Noes 195.

Division No. 376]
[9.05 pm>


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry





Benyon, W.
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heddle, John


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Budgen, Nicholas
Holt, Richard


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Howard, Michael


Butler, Chris
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Janman, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Critchley, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gregory, Conal
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Price, Sir David
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Tom Sackville


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dalyell, Tam


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Alton, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fraser, John


Buchan, Norman
Fyfe, Maria


Buckley, George J.
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gould, Bryan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)





Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, John


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Johnston, Sir Russell
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


McCartney, lan
Soley, Clive


McGrady, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wilson, Brian


Morley, Elliot
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Frank Cook.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of The proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, designated those amendments which appeared to him to involve questions of privilege.

Lords amendment No. 266 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.

Lords amendment: No. 265, after clause 140, insert the following new Clause—Charges: temporary traffic signs.—
Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, or the provisions of sections 138 to 140 above, a highway authority may not impose a charge for permitting temporary traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area by an organisation representative of road users under section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in its application to Scotland.

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Howard.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 126.

Division No. 377]
[9.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Alexander, Richard
Gow, Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amess, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Amos, Alan
Gregory, Conal


Arbuthnot, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Grist, Ian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ground, Patrick


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Hannam, John


Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Harris, David


Batiste, Spencer
Haselhurst, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Hawkins, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayward, Robert


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hill. James


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irving, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James





Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shersby, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Buchan, Norman
Hinchliffe, David


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Doran, Frank
McGrady, Eddie


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)






Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), after clause 140, insert the following new Clause—Charges: temporary traffic signs—

`(1) In section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (powers and duties of highways authorities and roads authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) No charge may be made—

(a) in England and Wales, by a highway authority which is the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London, or
(b) in Scotland, by a local roads authority,

with respect to the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above to permit a traffic sign to be placed on or near any road in their area if—

(i) the sign conveys information of a temporary nature or is otherwise intended to be placed only temporarily; and
(ii) the sign is to be placed by a body which is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection as being a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of road users or any class of road users."

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where, before this section comes into force, the payment of a chargehas been agreed.'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:: Ayes 197, Noes 118.

Division No. 378]
[9.34 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beggs, Roy
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Browne, John (Winchester)
Devlin, Tim





Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Emery, Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Miller. Sir Hal


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Iain


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Sir Charles


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Neale, Gerrard


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Gale, Roger
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Gow, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Gregory, Conal
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grist, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David


Hague, William
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hannam, John
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Renton, Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stevens, Lewis


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hill, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hind, Kenneth
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Holt, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hordern, Sir Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thurnham, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Irvine, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Irving, Charles
Trippier, David


Jack, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Jackson, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Janman, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Waller, Gary


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Key, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Watts, John


Knapman, Roger
Wheeler, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Whitney, Ray


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Widdecombe, Ann


Knox, David
Wilkinson, John


Lang, Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lawrence, Ivan
Winterton, Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Wood, Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)



Lilley, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Lord, Michael



MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Alton, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, A. J.
McGrady, Eddie


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bermingham, Gerald
McLeish, Henry


Blair, Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McWilliam, John


Buchan, Norman
Madden, Max


Buckley, George J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Caborn, Richard
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martlew, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Meale, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Monf'g)
Michael, Alun


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Crowther, Stan
Morley, Elliot


Cryer, Bob
Murphy, Paul


Cummings, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dixon, Don
Randall, Stuart


Duffy, A. E. P.
Richardson, Jo


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alexander
Ruddock, Joan


Eastham, Ken
Short, Clare


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fearn, Ronald
Snape, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Soley, Clive


Flannery, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Straw, Jack


Fyfe, Maria
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wall, Pat


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wallace, James


Gordon, Mildred
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Gould, Bryan
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Henderson, Doug
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Johnston, Sir Russell



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 11

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords amendment: No. 582, in page 222, line 55, column 3, at beginning insert—

"Section 69.".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Howard.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 105.

Divislon No 379]
[9.47 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Hague, William


Alexander, Richard
Hannam, John


Amess, David
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Amos, Alan
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawkins, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Batiste, Spencer
Hill, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hind, Kenneth


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jack, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jackson, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Janman, Tim


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butler, Chris
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carttiss, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Conway, Derek
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Emery, Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Miller, Sir Hal


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Iain


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, Sir David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Fookes, Dame Janet
Morrison, Sir Charles


Forman, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Neale, Gerrard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nelson, Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Glyn, Dr Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodlad, Alastair
Paice, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Gow, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Gregory, Conal
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grist, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David






Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Alton, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Loyden, Eddie


Barron, Kevin
McGrady, Eddie


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McLeish, Henry


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Blair, Tony
McWilliam, John


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Canavan, Dennis
Michael, Alun


Carlile, Alex (Monfg)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dewar, Donald
Randall, Stuart


Dixon, Don
Redmond, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Richardson, Jo


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alexander
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Short, Clare


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
Straw, Jack


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fyfe, Maria
Vaz, Keith


George, Bruce
Wall, Pat


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Henderson, Doug
Wigley, Dafydd


Hinchliffe, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Illsley, Eric



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith, with respect to the amendments designated by him which had not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 98.

Division No. 380]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Alexander, Richard
Gregory, Conal


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Amess, David
Grist, Ian


Amos, Alan
Ground, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Hague, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hannam,John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Ashby, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Aspinwall, Jack
Harris, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayward, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hill, James


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Emery, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Mans, Keith


Favell, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Sir Hal


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Iain


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gow, lan
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Twinn, Dr lan


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Alton, David
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Ashton, Joe
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Livsey, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Loyden, Eddie


Bermingham, Gerald
McGrady, Eddie


Blair, Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Boateng, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McNamara, Kevin


Buckley, George J.
McWilliam, John


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Murphy, Paul


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dewar, Donald
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Don
Richardson, Jo


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Eadie, Alexander
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Spearing, Nigel


Fatchett, Derek
Straw, Jack


Fearn, Ronald
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Flannery, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Wall, Pat


Foster, Derek
Wallace, James


Fyfe, Maria
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Gordon, Mildred
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Heffer, Eric S.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.


Johnston, Sir Russell

Queston accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments.

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 86.

Division No. 381]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ground, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Hague, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hannam, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Amos, Alan
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawkins, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hill, James


Batiste, Spencer
Hind, Kenneth


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jack, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jackson, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Janman, Tim


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butler, Chris
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carrington, Matthew
Key, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Conway, Derek
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Emery, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evennett, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Favell, Tony
Miller, Sir Hal


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mills, Iain


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


Franks, Cecil
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Freeman, Roger
Neale, Gerrard


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodlad, Alastair
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gow, Ian
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gregory, Conal
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Pawsey, James


Grist, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Townend, John (Bridlington)





NOES


Alton, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McGrady, Eddie


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beith, A. J.
McLeish, Henry


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McNamara, Kevin


Blair, Tony
McWilliam, John


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburr


Caborn, Richard
Maxton, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michael, Alun


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alex (Monfg)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Corbyn, Jeremy
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cummings, John
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Redmond, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Don
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Ruddock, Joan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alexander
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Straw, Jack


Fearn, Ronald
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Flannery, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Fyte, Maria
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. George J. Buckley.


Kirkwood, Archy



Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question,

That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 272, 269 and 582; that Mr. Sidney Chapman, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Paul Murphy and Mr. Clive Soley be members of the Committee; that three be the quorum of the Committee; that the committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mr. A. J. Beith: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that now the House has gone through the procedure of voting for huge blocks of amendments without separate debate or even separate vote it is now required to vote on the composition of a committee while the guillotine precludes any amendment to the composition of that committee? Presumably this is the only occasion when the House appoints a committee the membership of which cannot be varied by the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is the case, but, of course, the House can vote against that committee, as is happening.

The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 24.

Division No. 382]
[10.24 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Amess, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Amos, Alan
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Gow, lan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ashby, David
Gregory, Conal


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Grist, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hague, William


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hill, James


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maude, Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Miller, Sir Hal


Franks, Cecil
Mills, Iain


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Monro, Sir Hector






Moss, Malcolm
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charies (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)






NOES


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Wallace, James


Cohen, Harry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wigley, Dafydd


Cryer, Bob
Winnick, David


Fearn, Ronald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alan Beith.


Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Employment Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 8

POWER TO EXEMPT DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOUR OF LONE

PARENTS IN CONNECTION WITH TRAINING

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide with respect to—

(a) any specified arrangements made under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (functions of the Secretary of State as respects employment and training), or
(b) any specified class or description of training for employment provided otherwise than in pursuance of that section, or
(c) any specified scheme set up under section 1 of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (schemes for financing employment),
that this section shall apply to such special treatment afforded to or in respect of lone parents in connection with their participation in those arrangements, or in that training or scheme, as is specified or referred to in the order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Nicholls: The purpose of the amendments do not, which were introduced in Committee in another place, is to extend the scope of clause 8 to cover employment and enterprise programmes as well as training schemes. The clause, without the amendments, would have given the Secretary of State the power to exempt, by order, special treatment in favour of lone parents in training for employment from being unlawful discrimination against married persons under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. However, the clause as it stood would not have allowed exemption of similar arrangements which it might in future he thought desirable to introduce in the Department's other programmes, perhaps in the field of employment and enterprise.
The clause was generally welcomed when it was introduced towards the end of proceedings in this House, as were the Government's amendments aimed at widening the scope of the clause when they were introduced in another place. The amendments are designed to cover the whole range of the Department's current and possible future employment and enterprise measures, including activities such as the enterprise allowance scheme, job clubs and job share. But they do not give the Government a blank cheque. The Secretary of State would have to make orders specifying the special treatment for lone parents and the particular arrangements or scheme to which the exemption would apply. The orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendments do not represent a commitment by the Government to extend special help for lone parents to other areas of the Department's activities. We have no immediate plans to do so. We shall first need to see what happens in employment training.
However, the amendments provide the necessary flexibility to allow for future developments in provision for lone parents and for that reason I commend them to the House.
I want to say a word or two about the attitude that some Opposition Members may have to these provisions. I said that they were generally welcomed, but I am aware that there is a feeling that they perhaps should have been extended more widely and that instead of merely being targeted on lone parents they might have been extended to couples, on a means-tested basis. Inevitably money is always limited and the Government had to decide what they could do to help the most significantly disadvantaged group to come forward for employment training. There is no doubt that lone parents are significantly disadvantaged and they consist overwhelmingly, although not exclusively, of women. So the Government thought it right initially to introduce this scheme to help lone parents. However the debate may have proceeded since, at the time the proposals were welcomed.

Ms. Jo Richardson: As the Minister said, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 extend the application of clause 8 from training schemes alone to other employment and enterprise programmes. The new areas that he mentioned which would be affected by the amendments are the enterprise allowance scheme, job share and job clubs and the like.
We supported clause 8 in Committee and on Report, albeit with reservations about the non-application to married people. However, several developments have come to light since then and they have changed our welcome to dismay; indeed, they force us to divide the House over the amendments.
We are now in possession of the full facts—I am surprised that the Minister did not mention them—about the implications of the industrial tribunal decision to which the then Minister obliquely referred in Committee on May 17. We have spoken to the woman who took the case against the Government, and several times this week we have spoken to the Equal Opportunities Commission which represents the woman and supports her claim.
I apologise to the House for listing the fairly complicated scenario of that case, but the case is extremely important. The facts are that lone parents can have child care costs of up to £50 a week paid when they take up a place on employment training. As the Minister has said, married women did not have that entitlement. Kay Jackson, the woman in question, is married with three children under five. She had been offered a place on employment training but was unable to take up the offer because her allowance and her husband's salary would not have been sufficient for three lots of child care.
Much as she wanted to, Mrs. Jackson could not go on the training scheme. Therefore, on 5 January she took the Government to the tribunal on the ground that they had discriminated against married women. The tribunal upheld that claim on 19 January. The Government have just appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, but the decision has not yet been made known. In any case, clause 8 and the three Lords amendments circumvent the decision. As the Minister has said, they allow the Secretary of State to make an order after Royal Assent that will make legal discrimination against married women in the


provision of child care. That means that the Government are changing the law retroactively to cover what they would have to put in place if they lost their appeal.
The discrimination does not apply just to employment training because with the three Lords amendments the Government have extended the discrimination to the areas that I have mentioned—the enterprise allowance scheme, job share, job clubs and the like. Lord Strathclyde somehow managed to avoid all mention of the industrial tribunal when the matter was debated in another place. However, he said:
An extension of such help to all parents training on the scheme would be hard to justify."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 1989; Vol. 511, c. 676.]
He estimated that 20 per cent. of employment training entrants taking up child care costs would add an extra £100 million to the cost of the scheme.
We now know that because of the low take-up of employment training there are sufficient funds to pay for that. In other words, the £100 million could be found without going outside the amount set aside. I understand that about £3 billion was allocated for an employment training programme with 600,000 people over a year. When the Government failed to reach the target they reduced it from 600,000 to 540,000. They are still 100,000 entrants short. Money has been allocated for that and could be used to cater for married women who wish to take up employment training or enter one of the other schemes and apply for child care.
Many women do not go in for employment training either because they cannot afford to do so or because they are not eligible. The Government cannot fill all the places. Quite by chance last Friday I visited a training agency in my constituency. I am pleased to say that it is managed largely by women and has a good equal opportunities policy. The people in the agency complained bitterly that married women could not take up the places in the agency because it could not give them money for child care.
Why do not the Government kill two birds with one stone? The solution is here for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. In the past few months, even the Government have claimed to notice the importance of women to the labour market. We are constantly hearing, and I am glad to hear it, of notices from the ministerial committee on women's issues saying that women will be required in the workplace in the 1990s, but here we have the opportunity, and apparently the money, to extend these schemes to allow married women to take them up and to have child care, but the Government will not do it.
10.45 pm
In the White Paper of December 1988, the Government told employers, in paragraph 1.8, that they
must recognise that women can no longer be treated as second-class workers.
I echo that, and I hope that every hon. Member does. I am infinitely grateful for this change of heart. Many employers, aided and abetted by the Government, have treated women as second-class workers for the past decade and even longer. They have removed protection for part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, reduced the jurisdiction of wages councils for the lower paid, the majority of whom are women, and taxed workplace nurseries as a perk—a perk for whom? The majority of those affected in that case are also women. It

sticks in my throat when the Government say that women should be treated like first-class citizens when they do no: take the legislative action that would enable them to be so.
Let us take the Government at their word and see what remedies they propose. The White Paper suggests broadening company training policies, flexibility of work and hours, and job sharing. This is specifically
to facilitate the employment of women with families.
In that case, why is there nothing about child care, possibly the single most important facility for women wanting to start work or return to work, and why does that not apply to married women?
I shall recap the argument briefly because I want it to be clear in my mind and the minds of my hon. Friends. When a decision of the European Court goes against the Government, they always say that they are bound by British law and do not want to take any notice of European law—at least, that is the general impression that they give. When British law does not suit them, as it apparently does not in this case, they change the law, as the amendments do.
The Government appear to be awaiting a decision on ET. Assuming that they lose their appeal, and Mrs. Jackson wins, will they honour that decision, or will they use the provisions in these amendments to overcome what Mrs. Jackson has so rightly won in her long case? What will happen to the other six or seven cases that are continuing?
I strongly disapprove of the Government introducing changes on the basis of a negative order. Such important changes should be subject to the affirmative vote of both Houses of Parliament. I should like an answer from the Minister, but I have a strong feeling that he will resist extending the provision to married women. Therefore, I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The amendments raise certain issues which I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider. We talk about the family, and we all have a concept of the family. Many of us think of happy children being brought up in a household which gives them the support, love and care that they need all the time. Yet the reality is that many children are brought up by lone parents. They are the children of divorced parents, parents who have never married or widowed parents. Such children have a much tougher life, perhaps, than those who are brought up in the sort of family that I described initially.
The Government have been scorned for some time for supposedly failing to recognise that the pattern of the family has changed dramatically from the old-style paterfamilias family with a head of household who works, who is undoubtedly a man, with a non-working wife and with children at home growing up extremely nicely. The truth is that the Government have recognised that the pattern has changed. They are not behind in reading social trends. They have noticed that a significant classification of the new poor is the single parent bringing up young children.
The majority of single parents are female, and they are the women who have such immense difficulty in getting out of the so-called poverty trap—in other words, being able to find a job—because they may not have been very well trained. Many of the bed-and-breakfast cases with which I am aware, even in my constituency, consist of women


who have failed to cope with life in that they have not taken advantage of their education and training opportunities. There are others who have had children at an early age. For example, one of my constituents who is 17 years of age has twins and is apart from the father of her children. She is living with her mother. These girls—by and large they are no more than girls—find it extremely tough to make a start and become self-reliant, and they end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation of the sort that we are all well aware of and concerned about.
I cannot do other than welcome the Minister's departmental commitment to support for what we are calling lone parents. It is a most laudable thing to be doing. I am delighted to know that the Department is providing lone parents with a £50 child care allowance when they embark on training schemes. That is exceptionally good news. I am more pleased than I can say. These are the very people who are in the greatest need. Are we not committed as a nation and a Government to helping the poorest of the poor, whether that involves overseas aid or aid within the United Kingdom? It must be our objective to help those who are in the greatest need.
Here we have the horns of a dilemma. If we are to help those who are in the greatest need, we must first identify them. We have to make a judgment, and lone parents have been recognised generally as being an extremely needy group. The Child Poverty Action Group—a most eminent group—supports this stance. Once we have identified such a group we have enormous pangs of conscience because there is the rest of the world to consider. There are many others who have needs and they must be treated equally and given the same sort of treatment as we afford to those who are in the greatest need. That is the dilemma, and perhaps that is the illogicality on which the Opposition find themselves resting this evening.
Although I wish to help all members of my sex, I find a little difficulty in solidly identifying someone who is not a lone parent as necessarily a married woman. There must be others who are bringing up children. There must be married men who are doing so, for a start. There must be parted women who are not married. There must be parted men who are not married. In all these groups there must be some who have children. However, I wish always to help my own sex.
I recognise the great difficulty that some married women find in returning to the job market. In the information technology industry, for example, there are equal opportunities and equal pay. Why are married women supposedly seeking work not entering that industry? Clearly, carrots must be offered there. Again, we are making a judgment on a particular group and saying that they need some form of special treatment. Yet if we were supporting a women-in-technology campaign, we would not also be supporting a men-in-technology campaign because there would not be that need. Therefore, I am forced by logic to accept that, however difficult it is, we must identify some groups as more disadvantaged than others at any particular point in time and channel assistance to them.
I firmly support the Government in their child care concept for lone parents. I have great concern for lone parents and I have employed many of them during my time as an employer. However, I make the plea that my hon. Friend the Minister should not ignore the readily identifiable needs of married women wanting to return to the job market. I am not suggesting that because lone

parents are being helped other sectors of human society must also be helped; I am simply identifying them as a group which also has special needs.
On the understanding that the amendments are good and must be accepted by the House, I ask my hon. Friend to give a commitment that he will listen again to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has voiced its concerns to me, and consider whether there are further ways in which his Department can help another disadvantaged group—the married women at home who have not been earning because they have been bringing up their children and supporting whatever concept of the family we happen to fancy at any given moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will think of their needs and consider ways to help them back into the job market, because the job market certainly needs them.

Mr. James Wallace: Many people would share the view of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), not only in stressing the importance of giving help to lone parents who wish to undertake training but in suggesting that there must also be ways of encouraging the many married women who want to re-enter the job market to do so, and not least those who have been out of work for family or other reasons and have not qualified for unemployment benefit.
One of the weaknesses of the employment training scheme is that insufficient attention has been given to encouraging women to return to work. That is to be regretted for a number of reasons, including a woman's right to choose whether she wishes to re-enter the job market and the fact that not only one parents but also many married parents suffer hardship and face the necessity of having to go to work to try to make ends meet. This matter is important to employers and to the community because job structures will change over the next decade and into the next century.
The Government recognise that it will be necessary to encourage more women to return to work. The Secretary of State said recently that a survey of 2,000 companies showed that only one in three was trying to adapt employment and training practices to try to tap alternative sources, and that very few were far down the road towards providing child care facilities.
I have been corresponding with the Minister about cases in my constituency. The fishermen are away from home for much of the week and their wives want to work, but they do not qualify for the £50 per week child care allowance because they are married. In most instances, that prevents them seeking the training that they undoubtedly want. There is a clear need to extend the allowance.
The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for highlighting the case of Mrs. Jackson. The question of resources is important, but from what the hon. Lady said it appears that there might be sufficient resources—a point with which the Minister must deal in his reply.
We are discussing ways in which to encourage women and lone parents, male and female, to come back into the job market through training. There is not much point in getting them trained, however, if they cannot take up jobs because of a lack of child care facilities as a result of the current tax regime affecting workplace nurseries. We must go much further than reforming that tax regime, however.
The problem is especially acute for women who want to take jobs where there are no workplace nurseries. We must expand the state nursery sector.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on an interpretation of social security law, a woman could be told to take a job, having gone through a training scheme, not get any child care benefits, be on a low wage and therefore be unable to take the job because she cannot get anyone to look after her child—she would not be able to afford it—and end up out of work, having been trained?

Mr. Wallace: That sounds a plausible set of circumstances. There is a barrier to returning to work, and much more must be done about it.
It is regrettable that the Government have not responded more positively to the modest extension that the hon. Member for Barking has suggested. The Lords amendments are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough.

11 pm

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I believe that lack of child care is one of the main reasons why women do not enter the labour market, why they do not get on once they get a job and why they do not go on training courses. Lone parents struggle more than other people, but married women in low-income families experience great difficulty in taking up employment and training opportunities.
It seems that the Government accept that training is necessary but also ensure that it cannot be taken up. The Equal Opportunities Commission believes that the Government discriminate. If, as we sincerely hope, the appeal that has been mentioned is upheld, the Government will once again be seen to be going backwards when the rest of Europe is going forwards.
We need universally available child care. The Government should be just a little daring and accept our amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) made some sensible and telling points.

Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
Sometimes, when we have short debates, the quality of speeches shows that the debate could have gone on fruitfully for a good deal longer. With her usual perspicacity, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) anticipated that I cannot tonight give her everything that she wants. She was perhaps most worried that, if Mrs. Jackson wins her case, what is proposed here might retrospectively take away from her what she might obtain in the court. If Mrs. Jackson wins her case, she and anyone else who has a case in the pipeline will find that the judgment is honoured and that there is no question of retrospection.
The hon. Member for Barking, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) have all put their finger on the Government's dilemma. We are being accused not of not having done anything helpful, but of having come up with a good idea and not going far enough. The easy way to avoid laying oneself open to that criticism is to do nothing to help. The Government's

detractors would say that that is no more than can be expected of the Government and that no great harm has been done.
The difficulty is that experience has shown that women who wanted to return to the labour market and used the community programme as a vehicle were at a distinct—if unintended—disadvantage: if they had not been unemployed for six months, they could not go on to the programme. When employment training was being devised, we were anxious to do all that we could to ensure that women did not suffer from that disadvantage, and drew up a number of measures to try to help. One was the provision that those who had not been available for work but had been on the order book for more than six months should be eligible to come back; still more significant was the proposal that those who had been out of the labour market for at least two years should be entitled to take part in employment training. All those steps were warmly welcomed, and there can be no doubt on either side of the House that the variations in the criteria for eligibility for ET have been of significant advantage to women. The problem is knowing where to draw the line when resources are inevitably limited. The line taken by the Government is that it is right to target the resources available for child care on lone parents, who—to an overwhelming degree —are at the greatest disadvantage. The hon. Member for Barking advanced the beguiling argument that if there was an underspend on the programme because fewer people were going on to it owing to the rate of decline in unemployment, there might be some spare cash around. Ultimately, however, that argument does not hold water: it is impossible to plan the principle of a programme by simply trying to cash in on a temporary or notional underspend.
There is no question of retrospective legislation. All that we are doing is restoring the balance to its previous state, which at the time was greatly welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West is entirely right to remind us that the family has a wider context than that of the lone parent, and that married women also suffer disadvantages. We have tried to help them in the ways that I have suggested, but it would be going too far to say that, irrespective of whether a person is married or a sole parent, that person should automatically receive help.
In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), let me say that I entirely understand the argument that there is not much point in receiving help with child care during training if, once the training is over, people cannot obtain jobs because they cannot afford child care. The logical consequence of that understandable argument is that we should do nothing to help, but, given demographic pressures, it must be a good idea to provide quality training to help women back into the labour market.

Ms. Richardson: I am afraid that I cannot accept what the Minister has said. He sounds awfully pleasant all of a sudden—almost beguiling, as he said that I had been—but he tossed aside my suggestion that the Government have resources to spare within the scheme because of an underspend, and said that the Government could not spend those resources. I honestly do not know how the Government will cope with the demographic changes that the 1990s will bring unless much more is done to encourage


and support the married women—and, in some instances, married men—who want to join the work force, or return to it.
It is all very well for the Government to say, "They will just have to manage. We will target only lone parents" —deserving though they may be. The fact is that employers will not be able to cope unless married women are allowed, encouraged and helped to return to work. The Government have a golden opportunity to spend money that they have not spent so far, but they will not take it. I cannot think what to call such behaviour, but there are all sorts of words for it: stupidity is one.
I intend to divide the House simply to show that Opposition Members believe that the Government are not going nearly far enough in their efforts to return women to work and to support training and retraining for them.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It has been a useful debate.
The Minister suggested that I wanted a debate simply because I wished to be reassured that the Bill will not override whatever Mrs. Jackson may win. That was not the principal reason. However, I am distressed to find that the Government skated over that very important industrial tribunal case instead of welcoming it and applying the principle to other married women who have not had the opportunity to state their case.

Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if Mrs. Jackson wins the ruling will apply only to her and that, as with equal pay, women will have to make individual applications? That is very unsatisfactory. It does not work like that in other countries.

Ms. Richardson: If Mrs. Jackson wins, I understand that she will win only for herself. What is called class action does not apply to all married women. I wish to goodness that it did. I think that six or seven other cases are in the pipeline. Married women who have not gone through the procedure will not be entitled to the award that Mrs. Jackson may win for herself in a very brave and dedicated way.
I invite my hon. Friends to vote against the Lords amendment. We are not opposed to lone parents receiving help, but we want it to be extended now to married women.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 55.

Divlsion No. 383]
[11.11 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Browne, John (Winchester)
Devlin, Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dorrell, Stephen





Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Tony
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Favell, Tony
Mills, Iain


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gale, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gow, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Redwood, John


Gregory, Conal
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Stevens, Lewis


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Harris, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Haselhurst, Alan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Christopher
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Thornton, Malcolm


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trotter, Neville


Hunter, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Irvine, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jackson, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Janman, Tim
Wheeler, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wilkinson, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wood, Timothy


Knapman, Roger



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lightbown, David
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Lilley, Peter





NOES


Alton, David
McNamara, Kevin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Beith, A. J.
Meale, Alan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Blair, Tony
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute}


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Patchett, Terry


Buckley, George J.
Pike, Peter L.


Caborn, Richard
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Prescott, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Randall, Stuart


Canavan, Dennis
Redmond, Martin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Richardson, Jo


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Cummings, John
Short, Clare


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Doran, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Derek
Vaz, Keith


Fyfe, Maria
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N.


Gordon, Mildred
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


lllsley, Eric



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, before clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Exemption of Sikhs from requirement to wear safety helmets on construction sites—
.—(1) Any requirement to wear a safety helmet which (apart from this section) would, by virtue of any statutory provision or rule of law, be imposed on a Sikh who is on a construction site shall not apply to him at any time when he is wearing a turban.

(2) Accordingly, where

(a) a Sikh who is on a construction site is for the time being wearing a turban, and
(b) (apart from this section) any associated requirement would, by virtue of any statutory provision or rule of law, be imposed—

(i) on the Sikh, or
(ii) on any other person,
in connection with the wearing by the Sikh of a safety helmet,
that requirement shall not apply to the Sikh or (as the case may be) to that other person.

(3) In subsection (2) "associated requirement" means any requirement (other than one falling within subsection (I)) which is related to or connected with the wearing, provision or maintenance of safety helmets.

(4) It is hereby declared that, where a person does not comply with any requirement, being a requirement which for the time being does not apply to him by virtue of subsection(1) or (2)—

(a) he shall not be liable in tort to any person in respect of any injury, loss or damage caused by his failure to comply with that requirement; and
(b) in Scotland no action for reparation shall be brought against him by any person in respect of any such injury, loss or damage.

(5) If a Sikh who is on a construction site

(a) does not comply with any requirement to wear a safety helmet, being a requirement which for the time being does not apply to him by virtue of subsection (1), and
(b) in consequence of any act or omission of some other person sustains any injury, loss or damage which is to any extent attributable to the fact that he is not wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement,
that other person shall, if liable to the Sikh in tort (or, in Scotland, in an action for reparation), be so liable only to the extent that injury, loss or damage would have been sustained by the Sikh even if he had been wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement.

(6) Where—

(a) the act or omission referred to in subsection (5) causes the death of the Sikh, and
(b) the Sikh would have sustained some injury (other than loss of life) in consequence of the act or omission even if he had been wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement in question,
the amount of any damages which, by virtue of that subsection, are recoverable in tort (or, in Scotland, in an action for reparation) in respect of that injury shall not exceed the amount of any damages which would (apart from that subsection) be so recoverable in respect of the Sikh's death.

(7) In this section

"building operations" and "works of engineering construction" have the same meaning as in the Factories Act 1961;
"construction site" means any place where any building operations or works of engineering construction are being undertaken;
"injury" includes loss of life, any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition and any disease;
"safety helmet" means any form of protective headgear; and
"statutory provision" means a provision of an Act or of subordinate legislation.

(8) In this section—


(a) any reference to a Sikh is a reference to a follower of the Sikh religion; and
(b) any reference to a Sikh being on a construction site is a reference to his being there whether while at work or otherwise.

(9) This section shall have effect in relation to any relevant construction site within the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain as it has effect in relation to any construction site within Great Britain.

(10) In subsection (9) "relevant construction site" means any construction site where there are being undertaken any building operations or works of engineering construction which are activities falling within Article 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 1989."

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 13.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that it will assist the House if I explain the background to the amendments and the reasoning behind them.
The Health and Safety Commission has long been concerned about safety standards in the construction industry. As long ago as 1986, the commission issued a consultation document on proposals for regulations that would require all workers on construction sites to wear head protection where there was a risk of injury. These proposed regulations, which have the support of both sides of the industry, should significantly reduce the number of head injuries on construction sites. The Government are committed to laying the regulations before the House as soon as possible.
The Government have also had to consider the impact of the regulations on the Sikh community. For religious reasons, orthodox Sikhs are unable to wear anything on their heads in public except a turban. Most of the responses to the 1986 consultative document commented on that issue. Broadly speaking, employers and employer organisations in the industry argued against an exemption on health and safety and industrial relations grounds. The Sikh community, on the other hand, argued in favour because of the hardship that Sikhs would otherwise suffer. The Government have had to take a difficult decision. We had to balance strong feelings and views about the importance of health and safety on one side with strongly held religious views on the other.
It may help the House if I rehearse briefly some of the arguments. The dangers of head injury on construction sites are well known. They are undoubtedly greatly reduced by the wearing of helmets. We are confident that new regulations will considerably reduce the number of head injuries and result in an overall improvement in health and safety standards.
The House will not be surprised to learn that Sikhs also feel strongly about the issue. The tenets of his religion are more important for the turbaned Sikh than his own safety. There are more Sikhs employed in construction than in any other industry. It is estimated that the figure could be as high as 40,000. The practical consequences of a statutory requirement on Sikhs to wear helmets would be that many thousands of Sikhs would be faced with a straight choice between their religion and their job. That would cause real hardship and could also result in a loss of skilled labour to the construction industry.
It is rare for an issue fundamental to the faith of one particular religious group to come into conflict with public policy. But on other occasions it has been seen as right that the law should take account of deeply held religious beliefs. A precedent exists in the Motor-cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976. Looking back further, there is the whole British Sikh military tradition. Sikhs were allowed to wear turbans instead of steel helmets when they fought for this country in the first and second world wars.
The Government believed that the balance of the argument lies in taking account of the deeply held views of the Sikh community. Making an exemption for Sikhs in this way will mean that the overall improvement in health and safety arising out of the new proposed regulations will be slightly less than it might otherwise have been. I have no hesitation in accepting that.
Having decided to make an exemption, it was essential for us to do all that we could to make it workable. That is why we introduced Lords amendment No. 5, which I know is a cause of concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), among others, and which was debated at length in another place. I should say to my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Crosby that the effect of their proposed amendments would be to render worthless a Sikh's right not to wear a helmet because an employer could justify a general requirement to wear a helmet on health and safety grounds. We believe that that would make our exemption unworkable.
You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this has not been an easy decision for the Government to make, but I am convinced that our approach is the correct one. I am confident that it will command widespread support in the House.

Mr. John Townend: I strongly oppose Lords amendment No. 4, which will divide communities and discriminate against the indigenous population. The British people have accepted millions of immigrants from the new Commonwealth since the war. As a result we have, for better or worse, ceased to be a white, homogenous society and become a multi-racial society, with all the problems that that brings.
The British people were never consulted and all the polls show that if they had been consulted they would have consistently opposed mass immigration, which has fundamentally changed the country in which they live. Despite that, however, they have accepted the newcomers with a generosity and tolerance that few other countries have shown. The British people have accepted that they must integrate with the newcomers. They have accepted that everyone should be treated equally under the law and to ensure that there is no discrimination they have rightly been told that they must accept the Race Relations Act 1976.
Since the British people have so generously accepted the newcomers, it behoves the newcomers to integrate and to become English. Whether they are brown, black, yellow or white, they should become English in England and Scots in Scotland. They should accept our laws, our history, our traditions and our tolerance. Unfortunately, the great and the good in this country are not satisfied with having created a multi-racial society—they now want a

multi-cultural society, which will prevent assimilation and Anglicisation and will result in Britain ceasing to be one nation and becoming several nations.
11.30 pm
The new clause is fundamental to that change of policy.
An ethnic minority, albeit for religious reasons, is to be treated differently under the law from the rest of the community. Separate laws for separate communities are divisive and unwise, particularly when they involve the safety of others. What will be the position if somebody drops a heavy object from the top of a scaffold and it lands on a Sikh? If the Sikh were wearing a safety helmet, the object might just bounce off and cause no damage. If he is wearing a turban, however, he may be severely injured and fall on top of somebody else or knock somebody off the scaffolding. Others will thus be put at risk by the new clause. The Government should also consider the position of a worker on the top of scaffolding who accidentally drops something. Again, if it hits someone wearing a safety hat it may cause no damage, but if it hits a Sikh wearing a turban, it may kill or severely injure him. What about the psychological effect of that on the person responsible for the accident?
In industry safety should be paramount and religious belief should take second place. I understand that the new clause is opposed by employers in the construction industry and by the trade unions and that when it was debated in the House of Lords nearly all the Opposition speakers opposed it, although they did not press it to a Division.
When immigrants from different countries and with different beliefs come to a Christian country they should be prepared to accept our laws and our way of life. If they do not wish to do so, they have a choice. They do not need to work in the construction industry because there are plenty of other jobs available. Alternatively, they could wear a metal helmet over their turban. There is no consistency in the law. People wear hard hats in power stations but I am told that the new clause does not include power stations. How will Sikhs deal with that?
The new clause discriminates against British workers who do not wish to wear hard hats for other reasons, which in some cases might be health reasons.

Mr. Corbyn: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that many Sikh building workers and Sikh people living in Britain were born here, hold British passports and are therefore just as much British workers as any white worker?

Mr. Townend: I suggest that they should be prepared to accept the same laws as white British workers.
I was perturbed to read the remarks of the noble Lord Strathclyde when he moved the new clause in the other place. At column 738, he stated:
We are firmly committed to improving safety standards in construction and we are convinced that the regulation will be a significant step forwards. However, the many representations that we received from the Sikh community convinced us that the regulations would cause real hardship for orthodox Sikhs…
It was decided on balance that in this case the wider issues of religious freedom and——
these are the significant words——
relations with the Sikh community must take precedence". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1989; Vol 511, c. 738.]


It is the last sentence that worries me. Does this mean that in future legislation exemption will be made to maintain good relations with ethnic minorities? Such discrimination against the general population would be very much resented by the indigenous population, as other happenings have been in recent years.
My hon. Friend referred to crash helmets for motorcycle riders, an issue that caused considerable problems. I remember a sad case which occurred soon after I became a Member of the House. A gentleman said that he had his own reasons for not wearing a crash hat and asked why he should be treated differently from the Sikhs. He broke the law numerous times, was arrested many times by the police and was actually put in gaol.
We have also allowed the ritual killing of animals, which is abhorrent to many people in this country who regard it as cruel.
I beg the Government to go no further down this path as it is divisive and discriminatory. We must stop encouraging the development of a multi-cultural society. We must all be equal before the law whether we are brown, black or white. I sincerely ask the Government to think again and at this late stage not to press the new clause.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has just said, I simply say, as a member of the Conservative party, that it is no part of the philosophy that I recognise in my party to trample on the religious practices or beliefs of anybody in this country or outside. As I understand it, part of the burden of my hon. Friend's objection to what is proposed in the new clause is that Sikhs not wearing hard hats on building sites take a risk. I am prepared to accept that they take a risk, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider how important observance of their religion must be to them if they are prepared to take such a risk.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his wide-ranging and thoughtful introduction to these proposals, for many people in the Sikh community, certainly in my constituency in west London, in Southall which is next door, in Hayes and Harlington and in a number of neighbouring constituencies, building work is a traditional trade. Many Sikh people work on building sites.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many cases employers already have a difficult enough time persuading employees to use safety equipment, and will it not make things much more difficult if a certain section of the work force is exempt from the regulations? Will he also deal with the point that I raised about the danger to other workers?

Mr. Hughes: I am about to come to building employers and problems of sites.
I do not know whether all hon. Members have received this letter, which is dated yesterday, from Mr. Robbie Browne-Clayton, director of economic and public affairs at the Building Employers Confederation, telling us how heinous it would be if we allowed the new clause to be inserted into the Bill. I must tell the confederation that the record of its voluntary code of practice to persuade its members to wear safety equipment, hard hats and so on does not stand up to close examination. It is a bit rich for that body now to complain about what the Government

are doing. The final paragraph of the letter from the confederation complains about amendment No. 5 and states:
It has also been suggested that to admit the possibility of a defence of justifiability would effectively negate the whole exemption. This we do not accept.
The letter, however, does not go on to argue the confederation's case. The confederation must understand, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained, that without amendment No. 5 the rest of the amendments would not be worth the paper they are written on as people would be able to get round the changes.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: What evidence does my hon. Friend have to support his remark that builders, in general have done little or nothing to improve safety on sites? Builders supported the recommendations to which the Minister referred earlier and which will be laid before the House in the future. It is three years since builders gave their support to those recommendations. It is only because the Government have been considering representations from the Sikh community that those recommendations are not already in force. Given the support that those recommendations have received from builders, what evidence does my hon. Friend have to support his remarks?

Mr. Hughes: It is significant that my hon. Friend's reinterpretation of my remarks strengthens my point. I said that the record of the confederation was patchy and not good, but my hon. Friend said that builders had done nothing. I did not say that; I said that the confederation's record does not stand up to examination. It claimed that a voluntary code would work, but it has not. The Bill is necessary because of the standards in general.
I want to pay tribute to the person who has done an enormous amount towards the introduction of the amendment, Michael Truman, who was the Conservative candidate for Southall at the previous election. I know that that is a party-political point, but I hope that Opposition Members will bear with me. He brought me into the campaign and I know that Ministers at the Department of Employment and at the Home Office will acknowledge that he lobbied vigorously for the amendment. He brought a number of Sikh representatives to the House and to the Departments and he deserves a great deal of credit from the House.
With a few exceptions, the majority of hon. Members are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or in some cases Catholics. It is therefore easy for us to assume that laws which suit us will suit everyone. Whether people want Britain to be, or think that it should be, a multi-racial society is beside the point. Britain is a multi-racial society and that will not change.
There are times—this is one of them—when we must consider modifying our laws. Surely the benchmark as to whether that change is reasonable is whether it is fair to the community concerned and whether it brings any disadvantage to the rest of the community, white, black or Asian. I believe that this change does not disadvantage anyone, but recognises the religious conviction of the Sikh community. I am proud that my Government have recognised that and introduced the amendments.

Mr. Thornton: I listened with considerable interest to the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister. I am pleased that at long last the regulations to which he referred will, I hope, shortly be coming before the House.
There is total agreement on the desirability of hard hats being the norm and the rule on construction sites for safety purposes. The Minister has conceded that this will add immeasurably to the overall safety on sites. He has also conceded that the Government's concession in amendment No. 4 will weaken this improvement in safety. I accept that it is difficult to quantify the extent to which it will do so and I do not seek to quantify it. I also accept that the Government had an extremely difficult choice to make. They have come down in favour of an exemption for the Sikh community.
It is fair to say that, although these moves have been generally and widely welcomed, the employers in the construction industry feel strongly that no exemption should be allowed. However, my motion to disagree does not relate to this general exemption but to the Lords amendment which was moved thereafter and to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred: the amendment related to justifiability.
That amendment adds to, rather than clarifies, the problem. It adds to the difficulties that employers will face on building sites. It may be that, under normal circumstances, the exemption which amendment No. 5 grants to Sikhs will cause few, if any, problems. It may be possible for sensible and sensitive employers to allocate different work on that site. However, that is not always the case. We all know construction sites on which particular dangers and difficulties exist. The amendment is specifically directed at such sites.
If an employer has decided that, because of its specific circumstances, a site requires that all the work force should wear hard hats, he would be left with no defence against a claim that something was being done to the detriment of a Sikh who was required to leave his site or move to another part of the site where further detriment—perhaps by loss of earnings—would be caused to that worker. I do not believe that the Government wish to impose such an additional difficulty, or that this is, in any way, what the amendment seeks to do.
In answer to Lord McCarthy, in the other place, the Lord Strathclyde said:
The Government feel that to refuse to employ Sikhs on such grounds
—that their own health or the health and safety of other workers might be endangered—
because they would not wear safety helmets is unjustifiable. The employer no doubt would argue that the condition is justifiable, as he is applying it to all his employees equally." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1989; Vol. 512, c. 82.]
It seems to me, and to the employers, that this is wholly unreasonable. The matter is already covered by existing legislation.
The Minister said that my amendment is a wrecking amendment that would negate the Lords amendment. Not so. There is adequate race relations legislation to cover the point. Employers have to justify to courts or tribunals that the decision taken was reasonable in the circumstances.
I recognise the Government's dilemma: they have spent three years considering representations made to them and

have come to the conclusion that it is right and proper to grant Sikhs this exemption. I do not accept that my motion will negate the Lords amendment, which, if carried, will add enormously to the difficulties of site management and cause problems for employers and workers alike. Lords amendment No. 4 will give the Sikhs what they need—Government recognition of the risks that Sikhs are prepared to take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, for their religious beliefs.
Whether this will affect other workers and how much they might have to suffer because of other people's beliefs are fine points. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us why present legislation cannot guarantee the exemption that the Government are granting. I hope that he will be persuaded that such legislation is enough and that there Is no need to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been a good debate on the first group of amendments, although we were unhappy with its outcome, and the issues were given serious consideration. This debate has been unfortunate in that the contribution by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) contained connotations which we found unacceptable and which lowered the tenor of the discussion.
The hon. Member for Bridlington said that Sikhs should accept our laws because they live in our country. That is a non-starter. The Lords amendments would allow Sikhs to wear turbans on construction sites. If we reject the measure, presumably employers will not take Sikhs on such sites, in line with the situation before the Lords amended it.
This is not an easy issue for me to discuss. For one thing, I do not have a Sikh community in my constituency. It is also difficult to adopt a clear position on this sensitive subject. We should probe the arguments on both sides better than we are doing in order to understand the legislation. First, there is a clear danger to Sikhs. The Minister has admitted that. I do not know the extent of the danger, but it is clearly a matter of some significance or there would be no reason to say that helmets should be worn on construction sites and no need for the other parts of safety law to operate.
The hon. Member for Bridlington spoke about danger to other workers. We can think of sites other than high buildings—tunnels, for example—where such danger could be caused. In such cases danger caused to Sikhs could give rise to all sorts of problems for people who go to their aid. Perhaps we do not fully understand the likelihood of that, but it may be that debates on earlier legislation when the wearing of helmets was discussed will give us knock-on information for this debate.
Discrimination in favour of Sikhs may, on balance, be justified but to some extent it could create problems of counter-discrimination to other people who would feel unhappy about that. We must question whether discrimination in favour of Sikhs exacerbates problems instead of trying to resolve them. Perhaps we should discuss the wearing of turbans and helmets in a wider context. They have been discussed in the application of legislation to motor cycles and now such legislation is to apply to the construction industry. Presumably industries other than construction could also be affected by this legislation.
We need to respond to deeply felt community views, but it does not follow that we should take such views into


account in all circumstances. There may be some in which we should override them. It is like accepting the argument that Salman Rushdie should withdraw his book because of feelings in some communities.
We are also faced with the general argument about religious freedom. In the other place, Lord McCarthy said;
We should allow religious groups in this country who feel as deeply as the Sikhs on this matter freedom to do what they want unless we can demonstrate that they are significantly damaging people other than themselves by their actions.
To me the issue turns on whether other workers are being damaged, whether the employer is being put at risk and whether measurable damaging circumstances can be shown." 
—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1989; Vol. 511, c. 744.]
That is a fruitful position to take and we should discuss it while we have the opportunity before we move on from the amendment.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I support the amendments because they are most important to the many orthodox Sikhs among the 40,000 or so Sikhs in the construction industry. They would be faced with an appalling dilemma by the new requirement.
A long-standing characteristic of British life has been our freedom of religion and our tolerance of the requirements of different faiths. The provisions are directly related to the religious requirements of the Sikh faith. That faith goes back for more than 500 years, and it requires of its adherents that they coil their hair and wear it beneath a turban. That requirement is one of the five Ks which are the articles of the Sikh faith. The safety helmet provision would have been incompatible with that religious practice.
12 midnight
The British Sikh community therefore welcomed the amendments moved for the Government by Lord Strathclyde in the other place. In particular, they noted the opposition of Lord Stoddart of Swindon, speaking for the Labour party, who condemned what he called discrimination in favour of one particular religion, which he viewed, by some extraordinary way of reasoning, as somehow being discrimination against other sections of the community. It is right to respect the devotion of the Sikhs to their religion and to make these provisions. The Gravesend Sikh community has expressed its concern through its Gurdawara. I commend the Government for their sensitive response to the representations by hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members.

Mr. Eggar: We have had an interesting debate, and the contributions from my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) have shown what a difficult issue this is, and how the Government have had carefully to balance conflicting and firmly held views.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that exemption for Sikhs could, in theory, pose a risk to others who work on the site, but the chances of a third party on the site being injured as a result of a Sikh being injured because he was wearing a turban rather than a hard hat is fairly remote. Sikhs work on construction sites at the moment, wearing their turbans, and we are not aware of any injuries that have occured in the circumstances that he has outlined.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked me to describe the scale of the problem. The last year in

which there was a detailed examination was 1981–82, and in that period there were 2,000 accidents on construction sites involving head injuries. That is roughly the same number as occur now, although there might have been a slight decrease—we do not have any firm statistics. About one death a year has resulted from head injuries.
Unfortunately, because of the way that the statistics are collected, we cannot say how many of those injuries occurred to Sikhs. However, it is accepted by both sides in the construction industry that some strong legislative action has to be taken to improve safety on construction sites. There is no dispute about that, and it was recognised as a result of the 1986 consultation paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is not noted for his lack of generosity to those of us grinding away on the Front Bench, so it was slightly unfair to say that the reason why the consultation period has taken so long is that Ministers have been considering the position of the Sikh community. It was only in February this year that the recommendation was made by the Health and Safety Commission, and it was only at that point that Ministers were able to make a judgment on the conflict between the requests of the HSC and the feeling of the Sikh community.
My hon. Friend has suggested that Lords amendment No. 5 is unnecessary because it would still be for the employer to demonstrate that a requirement to wear a safety helmet was justifiable because, if a person were not to wear one, he would be a danger to others and to himself. The arguments on this matter are evenly balanced, as it is on a number of points in this difficult subject.
Having once decided, however, that there should be an exemption for Sikhs, it must be for the Government to ensure that the exemption is a real one and is beyond doubt. The problem with the argument that my hon. Friend advances, and that of the building employers—I understand the concern that has been expressed—is that it would muddy the waters and introduce some uncertainty and lack of clarity where, above all, we must have certainty and clarity.

Mr. Thornton: Is my hon. Friend aware that section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976 states that, if a "requirement or condition" can be shown to be
justifiable irrespective of the colour, race nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied",
indirect racial discrimination will not have occurred? That is the legislation to which I referred earlier. If the amendment is agreed to, it will deem that the enforcement of the safety helmet policy on a Sikh who is not prepared to wear a helmet would not in any circumstances be justifiable. The point that I am making—with respect to my hon. Friend, I feel that he has not answered it—is that existing legislation is sufficient to guarantee what the Government are saying should happen, which is that the general exemption should apply. The burden of proof would be on an employer to show before a court or other tribunal that what he was suggesting was justifiable. It cannot be right that there should be no element of justifiability.

Mr. Eggar: There may be a minority of employers who, irrespective of the exemptions that I hope the House will grant this evening, would claim that the normal wearing of a safety helmet justifies their refusing to employ Sikhs, or moving their existing Sikhs to other work. That is the point that is made by the Building Employers


Confederation. This requirement would amount to indirect racial discrimination under the 1976 Act, but under that Act the employer could argue as a defence that his action was justifiable as he was applying the condition of wearing a safety helmet purely on health and safety grounds. In other words, if we did not agree to amendment No. 5, an employer could override the exemption which the House is being asked to grant.
I return to my original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. If we accepted his argument, we would bring uncertainty where, above all, we want certainty and clarity. The argument of my hon. Friend on the burden of proof is not one which we would necessarily accept. There is a conflict between the legal advice that has been given to him and that which is available to me. It is a difficult area, because no clear decision has been made by an industrial tribunal. The law is not as straightforward as my hon. Friend has suggested.
We have had a useful and constructive debate on a difficult issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for contributing to it. I ask the House to agree to the amendments.

Ms. Richardson: I apologise to the Minister for not rising to my feet as swiftly as I should have done before he replied to the debate.
We think that the Government have it about right. We accept that there are groups in our society who have certain deeply held beliefs that should be recognised and respected. If that means that such people—in this instance, the Sikhs—are prepared to endanger themselves by wearing a turban and not a hard hat, that is for them to decide. Their views should be respected.
I was very shocked by the speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). Indeed, I felt extremely uncomfortable about it. I am sure that I echo the feelings of my hon. Friends in saying that we want a multi-cultural society—not an integration of those who have come to live among us or, in many cases, were born here. We do not want them so assimilated that they disappear. We want to benefit from their cultures.

Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Lady think that she is expressing the views of the vast majority of the British people? In my part of the country people think that there should be integration and assimilation and that we should become one people, the British people, regardless of colour.

Ms. Richardson: Those whom I meet in my constituency and elsewhere are much more tolerant than the hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. I do not know about the people of Bridlington. I do not know whether Sikhs live in Bridlington. I do not know whether those whose views the hon. Gentleman has apparently expressed have ever met Sikhs or discussed this matter with them. Perhaps they do not understand their deeply held beliefs.
I remind those hon. Members who can recall the event that some years ago the same arguments were rehearsed, from both sides of the House, about the wearing of crash helmets. I am proud and pleased that I voted for a measure that allowed people to wear turbans instead of crash helmets. There have not been any bad effects, although I do not pretend to know whether anyone has been killed. Nevertheless, it is proof of the pudding. We were tolerant then, for goodness sake let us be tolerant now.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 20

DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

"(2) Subject to subsection (2A), all the property, rights and liabilities to which the Training Commission was entitled or subject immediately before that date shall on that date become property, rights and liabilities of the Secretary of State.
(2A) Any liability in respect of pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities which, but for the passing of this Act, would have arisen or existed on or after that date as a liability of the Training Commission to or in respect of the chairman or any former chairman of the Commission shall instead be a liability of the Paymaster General."

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 16, 19 to 26 and 29.

Mr. Nicholls: These amendments all follow from the provisions of the Bill that dissolve the Training Commission. Between them, the amendments have the single main purpose of transferring land currently held by the commission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Training Commission has always been able to hold title to both freehold and leasehold land and buildings. Its property is not part of the civil estate, which is mostly held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment through the Property Services Agency. The Training Commission mainly exercised its land-holding power in relation to much of its jobcentre network and skills training agency sites. The arrangement has been particularly appropriate because the buildings held in that way by the Training Commission are mainly specialist in nature. Upon dissolution, it will be necessary for that property to be transferred to a new owner. When the Bill was being drafted a final decision on who that new owner should be had still to be taken. The Bill was therefore published with the provision that the Secretary of State should designate a Minister to hold the land title.
We have since concluded that the title should be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Having direct land-holding powers within the Department will give my right hon. Friend more direct accountability and responsibility, as well as improving administrative and operational efficiency. Before he can hold title to the land, my right hon. Friend must be constituted a corporation sole, which is what the main amendment in the group, No. 21, provides. The other amendments in the group simplify the drafting as there is no longer any need to differentiate between land going to the designated Minister and other property going to the Secretary of State. Now, with one exception, everything will transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with all the associated rights and liabilities. The only exception is that the Paymaster General will exercise his usual responsibility for the pensions and similar payments due to the chairman and former chairmen of the commission.
I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will be content to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I must confess to some puzzlement. The Minister has spoken only about the transfer of assets and the staff concerned, yet I understood that this group of amendments was to do with the dissolution of the Training Commission. If that is the case, I want to speak about that as well as about assets, property and staff.
It is not clear whether future employers will stand by any employment agreements on wages, job conditions or pensions of staff. The Minister should say something about that. It would be interesting also to know the value of the property that is to be transferred and how the Minister predicts it will be farmed out to the successor bodies.
The main issue here, however, is the abolition of the Training Commission. It is incredible that we are having such a brief debate on this subject, which is vital to the nation's future industrial prosperity and our work force's training opportunities. It is not clear why these proposals were not brought before the Standing Committee. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us why the Government waited until debates in the other place to raise the issue.
There have been numerous and confusing changes in training schemes recently. We used to have the Manpower Services Commission, which was a tripartite body comprising three employer, three trade union and three education authority representatives who ran the youth training scheme and the technical and vocational education initiative in schools and colleges. It included local councillors and local bodies that represented all three interest groups. They approved, or did not approve, schemes, but in some cases did their job too well for the Government. They found fault with the quality of schemes, whether because of the content, the training or unsatisfactory or unsafe conditions, and some of them said so. The Government curtailed their role and then disbanded the MSC. The Government then created the Training Commission, which is now to be disbanded. The new idea is to have training and enterprise councils. How many bids have there been in each area to run TECs?
Will the Minister confirm our information, which is that in many cases there is only one bid? Would he care to comment on the likely outcome in terms of the breadth and quality of the training? Are all the leading figures in industry and commerce and top management in the private sector, who will run TECs, to be white and male —with one exception, I gather, in Newcastle somewhere? If so, is that not possibly in breach of the sex discrimination and racial discrimination legislation, perhaps not technically, but in spirit?
I am puzzled how employer-led schemes are expected to succeed in some areas. The Governmnt are fond of telling us how successful their efforts to do away with unemployment have been, but there are numerous constituencies where unemployment is very high. In Liverpool, Riverside, for example, 25·3 per cent. of the available work force is unemployed. In Glasgow, my home town, no fewer than eight constituencies are in the top 20 of high unemployment. The official figure in Maryhill, my constituency, is 18·5 per cent., but the real figure, after allowing for the Government's fiddling of the figures, is considerably higher. There are many other constituencies with high unemployment—in Manchester, Birmingham,

Tyne Bridge and Sheffield, for instance. If there are not too many employers about, how are they supposed to organise training schemes for the available work force?
This policy might seem very reasonable in Horsham—where unemployment is running at 1 per cent.—and in Mid-Sussex, Wokingham, Chesham, Amersham and Mole Valley, where the rate is similarly low. It is simply not relevant, however, in areas of high unemployment. I wonder whether the Minister has thought his way through the problem, or whether areas such as Glasgow have, as usual, been written off as being of no importance because the Government do not care what happens to those who will not, in any event, vote Conservative.
How can such schemes possibly work, in the light of the attitude of management to training? As we travel along this road, we can predict exactly where we will arrive. An MSC/NEDO report concluded some time ago that British companies rarely considered training one of the main components of corporate strategy, and did not treat it as a boardroom issue. In another place, the Government even rejected a modest proposal that training organisations should be consulted before appointments were made.
Thus we shall have a work force trained in a narrow range of skills to suit individual employers. In a world of rapidly changing technology, their skills will be bound by whatever the local management sees fit to provide. They will be trained, but not educated. Can we believe that all employer-led agencies will be keen to foster a critical intelligence and the asking of awkward questions? Some will train; many will poach. Would it not, after all, be better if we retained the present arrangements and tried to improve them? Would it not be better if management got on with running their businesses, while those who know something about education and training got on with their business?

Mr. Wallace: I cannot accuse the Government of curtailing debate on the winding-up of the Training Commission: that provision was in the Bill originally, and was also debated in Committee. A more substantive criticism concerns the way in which the Manpower Services Commission was suddenly wound up to make way for the Training Commission, which is now being wound up in its turn. There has been little consistency or stability in the provision of training.
I shall ask only one or two questions; the next debate may allow broader discussion of some of the issues. First, can the Minister give us some idea of the value and extent of the property and the assets with which we are dealing? Having become "incorporated"—I hope that that will not be too painful—what does the Secretary of State intend to do with the assets to which he will have sole title?
We know that, for better or worse, TECs are taking over from the Training Commission. What statutory provisions underpin them, though? How will those involved in them be accountable to the House for the money that they spend—in many instances, vast amounts?

Mrs. Mahon: I am very concerned about the way in which the amendments have been brought to the House, and about how responsibility for training is being given to people who have clearly failed in the past. The private sector has a very poor record. My constituency contains a TEC, and we know the names of the good and worthy whom the Minister has seen fit to appoint.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Business men one and all.

Mrs. Mahon: They are indeed—and they are exactly the same people who were appointed to the business in the community scheme, which also operates in my area, and to the Eureka project for an educational museum, funded mainly by private means. In the past, such people have largely relied on the public sector.
I am also concerned about the fact that there is no employee representation on the TECs. The proposal will not provide a coherent national training programme. I am bitterly disappointed that it has been brought before the House in this way.
Questions were asked in the other place about the European social fund. The figure of £60 million was mentioned as having come from the European social fund during the last 10 years. Most of that money was targeted on special projects. I hope that the Minister will say something about the future of that funding. Who will be accountable for the huge sums of money that will be provided by the public sector?

Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. In doing so I hope to clear up a misunderstanding. The amendments are specific. They do not relate to the dissolution of the Training Commission per se. They relate to the narrower and doubtless fascinating, although somewhat arcane, debate about who should own the land after the Training Commission is dissolved.
When these matters were first considered, a final policy decision had not been reached on precisely which Minister should be responsible for taking over the land holding. The traditional view was that all this should be done through the Property Services Agency via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, it was thought to be more sensible in the case of what might be described as a specialised property to place it in the hands of the sponsoring Minister. That is why it was proposed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment should take over the land holdings —not because of any particular desire on his part to indulge in empire building but because it seemed to be logical that he should take them over.
The amendments, I repeat, do not refer to the debate about why the Training Commission should be abolished. However, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) put his finger on it when he said that we had that debate in Committee. Having already this evening been accused of being surprisingly nice, I hesitate to confound that new assessment of me by significantly lowering the tone of the debate. However, perhaps I could delicately remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that the reason for the abolition of the Training Commission was because one of the main limbs of that tripartite structure—the TUC—came out against employment training. Bearing in mind that that was the Training Commission's biggest programme at the time—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maryhill lines herself up behind the wreckers of employment training.
The fact is that the Manpower Services Commission, the predecessor of the Training Commission, was responsible for designing the programme, together with trades union commissioners. However, they then decided, for what one can only conclude were party political

reasons, to oppose it. It would have been a complete nonsense for the commission to continue to function when one of its main limbs was campaigning against what it was designed to do. The decision was taken, therefore, to abolish the Training Commission.
I am going over somewhat old ground that has been debated before, but it is right to make that point in order to clear up any apparent confusion among Opposition Members.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for clearing up some of the confusion, but he is labouring under the delusion that we are simply talking about trade union involvement in what was formerly a tripartite body. I have read thoroughly the debate in the other place on the issue. There were many references to the fact that education and training bodies were not represented on the commission. The Minister has chosen to deal only with uncontroversial property matters. He is dodging the issue of the role of the trainers and educators.

Mr. Nicholls: If I am to be accused, even pilloried, for keeping myself within order, I shall have to suffer those slings and outrages with as much fortitude as I can command. The amendments are specific; if Opposition Members wanted to broaden the debate on the commission, they should have worked out how to do so.
I do not think that I shall be giving too much away to some hon. Members if I say that TECs and general Government training policy will be considered in the next debate on industrial training boards. This narrow debate is on the land-holding capabilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree that I have addressed those concerns quite directly.

Mr. Wallace: I asked two relevant questions within the narrow confines of the debate on the extent of the land holdings and what the Secretary of State proposes to do with them.

Mr. Nicholls: The land holdings will be those formerly held by the Training Commission. Jobcentres will be among the properties affected, and, within the meaning of the statute, my right hon. Friend intends to own them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8, before clause 21, insert the following new clause—Consultation in connection with industrial training orders—
. In section 1 of the Industrial Training Act 198.2 (establishment of industrial training boards), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (4) and (5)—

"(4) Before making an industrial training order the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations or associations of organisations appearing to him to be representative of substantial numbers of employers, and such bodies established for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, as he thinks fit; and
(b) such other organisations, associations or bodies (if any) as he thinks fit.""

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
May I welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new post following the reshuffle? Man and boy, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) stayed as my shadow for over six years, and I very much hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will have such a happy and long career on the Opposition Front Bench.
The amendments, which we moved in another place, are designed to enable us to change statutory industrial training boards to voluntary employer-led bodies or to employer-led boards. The change is part of the changes to the existing training framework necessary to meet the challenges of the next decade.
The White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", which we published some months ago, set out the scale of the challenges facing Britain, such as the effect of changing demography:—in particular, the shortage of young people —the growth of overseas competition, the changing patterns of employment and changing skill needs.
The White Paper set out the framework required to meet those challenges. In future, training must help business succeed, become the responsibility of employers, provide standards that are set by industry, allow adults and young people to receive qualifications, be delivered locally and be flexible to suit local needs. The commitment of employers is fundamental to that. One of the most encouraging features of the current training position is the strength of employers' response to the training and enterprise councils' initiative.
In the debate on Lords amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked how many training and enterprise councils had been approved. Although the concept was introduced only last March, 35 TECs have been approved for development funding. Plans for a further 50 are well advanced. Already, over half the working population is covered. In the north-west, there are TECs in Cumbria, Oldham, east Lancashire, Rochdale, south-east Cheshire and Wigan. In my area, the west midlands, there is a major TEC in Birmingham and one in Walsall. There is also one in the north-west midlands. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, there are TECs in north Yorkshire, Sheffield, Calderdale, Kirklees and Rotherham.
The TECs are covering the country, and there is tremendous enthusiasm for the concept. It would be a great tragedy if we had the normal political knockabout on this concept. The idea is crucial to this country. The TECs will plan and provide training locally, help the training of employed and unemployed people and will give training and enterprise not only a higher profile locally but a much better delivery locally than we have ever had.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper acknowledges that, going back to the beginning of the century, the private sector has failed miserably in providing training? We compare very unfavourably with our European counterparts.

Mr. Fowler: The case is not quite as the hon. Lady states it. We certainly need to catch up with countries such as Germany, France, Japan and the United States. The

position to which the hon. Lady refers has not suddenly emerged but has been a characteristic of this country all this century. [Interruption.] It serves no one to sloganise, least of all to clamour and shout out as hon. Members are doing from a sedentary position. This is a serious matter which requires a serious policy response. Training and enterprise councils are a serious response.
I ask the Opposition to talk to the people who are on TECs locally—the business leaders. The thing that has impressed me most about the TECs is the enthusiasm that has been shown. People who have been involved in training for decades longer than I have noted the new spirit that has arisen over the past few years, not least for demographic reasons.
We need training arrangements that deliver not only training locally but standards in each industry at the sectoral level. In other words, our training system must be founded on standards and recognised qualifications based on competence. Those standards must be identified by employers and be nationally recognised. We need a system of employer-led organisations to identify, establish and secure recognition of standards, sector by sector or occupational group by occupational group.
Such a system of standard-setting bodies will be effective only if employers are committed to it. The Government's objective is therefore to see established throughout industry and commerce standard-setting bodies created by employers themselves, to which they subscribe and which will secure their continuing voluntary support. That approach is far preferable to one of regulation and compulsion.
The statutory system, whatever may have been said about it in the past, has not delivered the goods. Many firms in the few sectors covered by the statutory systems are not happy with performance. The engineering industry training board is an example. The group of 14 major companies in the engineering industry has campaigned against the continuance of the EITB in its present form. The levy system is bureaucratic by any measure, has ceased to be an incentive to train in many industries and is not providing money in that respect. The statutory framework constrains the development of effective commercial operations. The offshore petroleum training board, for example, cannot train workers employed for work onshore because of the statutory limitation on it.
Above all, industry training boards have failed to solve the training needs of their sectors. As the White Paper sets out, we want to move to a system which is based on employer commitment and which is voluntary, and independent and employer led. In saying that employers have the key role to play in securing those improvements, I am not seeking to deny the important part that other groups such as trade unions and educationists rightly play in training matters. However, without the commitment of employers, the good will and active encouragement of others will achieve little. In the vast majority of sectors that already have independent, voluntary arrangements, the views of trade unions are sought and taken into account, and in a range of those sectors, trade unions are represented on the governing body itself, including the glass, aviation, insurance and timber trades and many other industry organisations.
We want to move to a non-statutory system. At present, only seven statutory industry training boards are in existence, compared to over 100 independent, voluntary training organisations. We want to move to a system in


which all sectors are covered by non-statutory, independent and voluntary arrangements. Those bodies must be able to command the active support of senior management in their sector. They must be seen by their sector as the body with the major role of dealing with Government on vocational, education and training matters, and their most important functions are the identification of key skill and training needs, and the establishment of occupational standards. In that way, they will complement the work of the training and enterprise councils at local level.
When I published the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", I announced that we would be consulting the seven remaining ITBs with a view to securing their replacement by independent and voluntary bodies. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has held detailed discussions with all the main employer interests involved. I am pleased to tell the House that employers in the majority of sectors covered by those boards have come forward with proposals for the creation of such bodies.
Those new organisations will be progressively taking over the key activities of the boards covering the sectors of road transport, hotel and catering, clothing and allied products, plastics processing, offshore petroleum and engineering other than engineering construction.
In the case of construction and engineering construction, I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue there for the time being. There are particular problems in those areas concerned with a highly mobile labour force. In those industries there is much labour only sub-contracting, a high level of self-employment and a high use of short-term contract labour.
I shall be telling the two ITBs concerned that they will be reconstituted for a further three-year period, using the new powers being sought in the Bill, ending in 1993 for the construction industry and 1994 for engineering construction. At the end of that period, the Government will want to review the statutory arrangements.
In the future, there will be significant changes in the statutory boards. That includes the way in which we will wish to move to an employer majority on the boards using powers in amendment No. 10. They will become employer-led bodies but they will be statutory bodies, and the levy powers will continue.
12.45 am
The positive response from employers to my request to develop their own voluntary training arrangements promises well for the future success of the new bodies. They should provide a firm basis for the improvement in our training performance. It was necessary to see the shape of the proposals from employers for the replacement of statutory ITBs—those which are being replaced—before we could draw up appropriate amendments to the Industrial Training Act 1982. The powers we are seeking in the amendments will make it possible to transfer the staff and assets of ITBs to successor bodies so that key functions can be maintained and the continuity of employment of staff secured.
Amendment No. 8 changes the requirement on me to consult before making an order affecting the scope of an ITB. Amendment No. 9 will enable the key activities of ITBs to be continued without disruption during the transition to non-statutory status. It enables a board, with

my agreement, to pass on its assets to a successor to be used for charitable purposes connected with training for employment.
The new clause also safeguards the position of staff involved in such a transfer by extending the application of the Transfer Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to them. That means that their existing terms and conditions of employment will be preserved, and that is important.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that includes existing pension rights?

Mr. Fowler: There are different arrangements for pension rights. This concerns the working terms and conditions. However, I understand that the inquiries that have been made of the boards and their constituent parts suggest that most will want to take advantage of the existing industry training board pension scheme. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that there is an industrywide scheme to cover this issue and I think that staff will continue to use it. These terms do not cover the pension arrangements. There is nothing unusual about that since that has never been the case with such transfers.

Mrs. Mahon: In the previous debate, I mentioned the £60 million that has come from the European social fund and said how useful that has been. Does the Secretary of State believe that we will be able to attract that sort of funding when training is privatised?

Mr. Fowler: I heard what the hon. Lady said during the earlier debate. We are talking to the Commission about that and our intention is to ensure that that is the case. We are well apprised of the issue.
The general purpose of the new clause is to ease the transition from statutory ITBs to a voluntary approach. Firms in the industries affected and the staff of the ITBs involved will benefit from the change to voluntary status being achieved with a minimum of disruption.
Amendment No. 10 changes the balance of interests represented on ITBs, as well as providing the employer leadership that we believe is necessary to improve IT13 effectiveness. It will enable the move from statutory ITBs to employer-led successor arrangements to take place more smoothly.
The net result is that in the two sectors in which industrial training boards remain the employer leadership of the statutory boards will provide the basis for the reorganisation and achieve greater effectiveness. I hope that it will also pave the way for the development of voluntary arrangements in due course, but that is not the intent at the moment.
The overall effect of these amendments will be to create the conditions for voluntary employer-led training organisations to flourish. In important sectors of industry employers are now to be given a real opportunity to control and direct the work of their training body. They now have every incentive to play a full part, unfettered by the bureaucracy—perhaps the necessary bureaucracy—of a statutory system.
I agree that it is vital that that opportunity is taken. We shall be publishing a report shortly on research that we have carried out into the amount of funding and resources that are given to training in this country. We estimate that, at the moment, employers are spending about £18 billion' per year on training—although those figures are probably


several years out of date. There is no question but that there is and has been a marked increase in the interest and financial commitment given to training, especially over the past two years, and that it takes account of the demographic trends and changes in the work force.
To myself and to many in the training world, there is no greater challenge in the 1990s than that of providing better training. The difference between nations and companies will be the differences in their skills—and in the skills of individuals. The new arrangements will help to bring about that change, and that is important and necessary for this country.

Mr. Tony Blair: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words of welcome, although I find the idea of shadowing him for six years somewhat mind-numbing. In all fairness, I should tell him that my hon. Friends and I had in mind for him the more educative experience of opposition. He should regard the next year as a sort of training scheme for when that occurs, shortly after the next election.
This series of amendments deals specifically with industrial training boards. In 1981 there were 23 industrial training boards, but following a review by the Manpower Services Commission, their number was reduced to seven. The 16 that were wound up were replaced by voluntary bodies that seemed to multiply hugely so that there are now 102 non-statutory training organisations. In the White Paper published in December 1988, the Government proposed the abolition of the remaining seven industrial training boards. The amendments to be inserted before clause 21 in effect pave the way for that abolition
The two most controversial candidates for abolition are obviously the construction and engineering boards. As far as I understand what the Secretary of State has told us tonight, both the construction industry training board and the construction part of the engineering industry training board will remain in full in their present form, at least for the time being, and obviously I welcome that.
More generally, it is worth remembering that the boards were set up not because the voluntary sector had succeeded, but because it had failed to provide the type of training that people wanted. It is against that background that we must look at the advantages of the present industrial training board system. The first advantage is that the boards have statutory force—in other words, they have the force of the Government behind them. They are not dependent simply on the good will of individual companies.
Secondly—we believe that this is particularly important —they are tripartite bodies that involve the employer, educational interests and trade union interests. Many employers, believe it or not, accept that trade unions play a vital part in ensuring that training is dealt with adequately.
Thirdly, the boards have levy-raising powers, which, at least for some training measures, are absolutely necessary. In any event, however, those levy-raising powers are, in many cases, the principal source of funds for those training boards. Even where levy exemption procedures apply, the levy exemption is allowed only where certain training

criteria are met by employers. Therefore the existence of the potential power to raise a levy can act as an incentive to employers for training practices.
Fourthly, tangentially, as a result of the levy, the ability arises to claim from the European social fund. The boards are treated as publicly funded bodies and, therefore, are eligible for grants under the rules of the ESF.
I want to direct my remarks principally to the engineering industrial training board. The 1981 review, "Framework for the Future", that paved the way for the abolition of 16 of the 23 boards that then existed specifically paid tribute to the work of the EITB and said that it had done a job that was irreplaceable by the voluntary sector. What has changed so dramatically between the publication of that Government report in 1981 and the White Paper in December 1988?
I understand that about 550 staff are employed by the EITB. I do not believe that anyone doubts the immense contribution that that board has made to training in the engineering industry, although I am not sure that the Government share that view. It is only right that we pay tribute to the work of that board and to the commitment of its staff to training. The Secretary of State may say that we still have tremendous training inadequacies in the engineering industry and that therefore, in some sense, the board has failed. I believe that the argument runs the other way—what would our training facilities be like but for the existence of the board? Surely that is the test of its effectiveness.
We should regard the levy-raising powers of the board seriously and it is instructive to look at its most recent accounts. Some £20 million of the £32 million revenue of the EITB comes from the levy in one form or another. I shall be obliged if the Minister could confirm that. I do not know many people who believe that a voluntary series of subscriptions could raise the same amount of money and, therefore, perform the same task on behalf of the board. As a result of matching grant from the ESF about £13 million in this financial year will go to the industry, not to the board, for training programmes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is correct that £13 million is a lot of money and it is roughly equivalent to half the board's revenue. I appreciate that it is not the same as the board's revenue, but it is a substantial chunk of money which goes to the engineering industry for training. It is unjustifiable to say that the board should be abolished unless there is a clear guarantee from Europe that matching grant will still be available following the transfer to the voluntary sector. It would be extraordinary if we forfeited money that is available for training, especially as my information shows —I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm it —that the matching grant from the ESF assists 25,000 of our people to train.
I know that the board believes that much of the money that goes to training would not be forthcoming from the industrial sector employers. If that money is lost, effectively it will be lost for good.

Mrs. Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the excellent schemes in new technology for groups such as women who want to get back into the work force have come from that very source of funding? That is very important.

1 am

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is one danger of saying that training should simply be left to market forces in the private sector. There will be perfectly legitimate schemes and interests which will not be met simply by the operation of market forces. I and a lot of other people fear that if there is a move to the voluntary sector it will not be in the employers' commercial interests to maintain some schemes which perform a valuable function now. Therefore, we must be sure of the proposed move's consequences before we make it.
A separate submission, dated May of this year, was made to the Department of Employment, in which the engineering industry training board listed nine key elements which they believed were at risk in the transfer to the voluntary sector. Those nine items, which I shall not list because they are fairly well known, add up to the requirement for a strong, politically supported national organisation which has a clear sense of direction and is adequately funded to provide the training needs in the engineering sector. When we consider that, and the paucity of guarantees and assurances which the Secretary of State gave tonight, we see that there is a pretty compelling case for the retention of an industrial training board in the public sector.
Many non-statutory training organisations operate in the voluntary sector. Some of them replaced earlier training boards which were abolished. I have looked a little bit at the evidence of how well these voluntary organisations work. An Institute of Manpower Studies report by Carol Varlaam which was published in December 1987 and done for the Manpower Services Commission found that more than one third of the voluntary organisations were ineffective when judged against the criteria applied. In July 1987 Mr. Alan Anderson carried out work for Manpower Research. He based his study on 42 of the non-statutory training organisations and found that the average number of staff at each one was slightly more than three and many of the organisations had serious funding problems.
At best, the evidence of the performance of these voluntary organisations is mixed. Therefore, against the background of the fact that they unquestionably do good work and have the ability to obtain funding from Europe and that transfer into the voluntary sector must, at the very least, as a result of the experiences which we have had, have uncertain consequences, it is highly irresponsible to propose the board's abolition without strong and satisfactory assurances that training will still be done adequately.
We know that the deficit on our manufacturing trade is about as serious as that in any modern industrial country, and the deficit in the engineering sector is £8 billion and covers virtually every sector, including new and old technology. It cannot be right at this time and with this trade deficit in engineering to abolish a critical element of our industrial training. If the Secretary of State is not serious about training in this country, he is not serious about our deficit; if he is not serious about our deficit, he fails in his responsibility to carry this country through into the 1990s. Therefore, without the proper assurances, we oppose the amendments.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new position.
I should like to concentrate on the construction industry training board because it has a profound effect on my constituents.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said tonight, but it is rather bizarre that we are discussing these important issues at this stage of the evening. It would surely have been better to make a statement earlier this afternoon. In that event, those of my constituents who have travelled down from Norfolk could have heard what the Secretary of State had to say 12 hours earlier, instead of having had to wait all day. It is strange that we have heard such an important announcement at this juncture.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the CITB. The uncertainty that has characterised the events of the past few months has been unsettling at the headquarters of the CITB at Bircham Newton. The morale of the staff has suffered and people have not known where they stand. Rumours have circulated and many feared that the future of the CITB was at stake.
If the statutory levy had not been kept, there is little doubt but that the CITC would have found it difficult to continue in the medium term. It is all very well firms saying, with the best will in the world, that they will pay a voluntary levy, but we all know that in construction, which the Secretary of State rightly said is different from other types of industry, when recessions come along firms cut back. They would cut back on the levy, the whole infrastructure of training would collapse and safety in the industry would suffer as a consequence.
I am slightly concerned about the proviso that the Secretary of State entered—that he will carefully examine how effective the new arrangements are and then review them in three years' time. That may well lead to continuing uncertainty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the new arrangements after a year and a half. I hope that he will examine the new board's structure, the new revenue-raising arrangements and the new management structure. I hope that management will be given more scope to get on with the job with less bureaucracy. I hope that at the end of a year and a half my right hon. Friend will say that the statutory levy is to continue, not just for another year and a half but for a good deal longer.
A large number of highly qualified people work in a major complex in my constituency which has a profound effect on the local economy. Beyond that—we must look beyond constituency interests—the future of safety in the construction industry is at stake. The industry's safety record in this country is far from perfect. A large number of people are seriously injured or killed on sites and if we do anything other than build on the CITB's excellent record in training, that record will go downhill. If we build on its record of expertise, commitment and enterprise, we can go forward and create a safer construction industry.
Tonight's announcement has put aside a great deal of uncertainty. I hope now that we can put recent unsettling events behind us, that we can look to the future and, above all, to a safer industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what I have said and that in a year and a half he will declare himself happy with the new arrangements and give a guarantee for a period much longer than three years, because so much is at stake.

Mr. Wallace: I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his maiden employment speech and I look forward to many more debates with him on this and related issues.
Much of the debate has centred around the Government's training strategy. It has been rightly pointed out that until now the private sector has had a poor record on providing adequate training. That was one of the principal reasons for the setting up of industrial training boards with compulsory levies. That took account of the fact that the private sector, left to its own devices, had signally failed. That is frankly admitted by the authors of the equivalent of the White Paper on Scottish training and enterprise. They say that the performance of the private sector has been a source of considerable disappointment.
We have moved to training and enterprise councils and in Scotland to local enterprise councils and to the different structures promoted by the Scottish Development Agency and Highland Enterprise. We must hope that they will succeed. We may express considerable reservations and concern, but if that is the only structure for training on offer for the time being, it is in the country's interest that it should succeed.
Many of us who represent rural areas have doubts about the availability of people who have the time, commitment and expertise to take an interest in training. In many respects such people are the local managers and deliverers of Government training schemes. Many of us have constituencies with many small businesses run by self-employed people. Most of the successful entrepreneurs in that field devote a great deal of time, including leisure time, to running businesses. One wonders whether they would have time to engage in promoting training schemes.
If the TECs are to be successful there must be a change in the whole culture. The Secretary of State has expressed optimism about that. However, it is not simply a question of that change applying to employers, important though that is, because training, while it is clearly in the interests of employers, must involve educators, trade unions, local authorities and other authorities. As my noble Friend Lord Rochester said in another place, it must also involve trainers. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will recognise that, and that consultation with the many other bodies will not just be lip service. Those bodies have an important role to play in the whole area of training and without them it would be impossible to initiate and continue adequate training schemes. I hope that their views will be properly taken into account, not least when setting up successors to the training boards to which the amendments relate.
Some hon. Members have already spoken about the weakness of the levy system. I accept that in industries such as construction and engineering it has been necessary to ensure a degree of fairness. We must ensure that the burden of training does not fall on those who are self-employed or who run small businesses and who have the good will to see the need for proper training. They must not be left to provide all the skilled people for industry.
People in the CITB who have found loopholes to avoid paying the levy have been a source of considerable irritation to those who are honest and pay up. One of my constituents, the first to attend my surgery in 1983 after I was elected, complained that he had been billed for a substantial amount as his levy to the CITB. He was in a

remote area of Orkney and did not see any benefit accruing because the CITB did not provide any training in the area. He was aware that many people, some of whom he had trained, had set up in business and, no doubt, were using the expertise that he had passed on, and who were exempt from the levy. That constituent feels a sense of unfairness and injustice. That must be addressed when we look to a continuation of the construction industry training board.
The Secretary of State mentioned the offshore petroleum board, which I understand does not impose a levy. Surely in the aftermath of Piper Alpha and other accidents and tragedies offshore it is important to have a board charged with responsibility for training, not least for safety training. The offshore liaison committee has been arguing since 1985 that the low paid or the unemployed should not have to subsidise the oil industry by paying for their own survival training. A recent survey of Shell's Tern field catering staff showed that 87 out of 93 had paid for their own survival training. With offshore safety so much in the forefront of our minds, one cannot leave it to the employers to get together and organise training because experience has shown that they have not been subsidising or providing safety training courses. There must be a Government role in ensuring that there is adequate safety training for offshore workers.
1.15 am
The hon. Member for Sedgefield dealt with the employment industry training board. I endorse his remarks, and I shall not go over them again. He made a powerful case for the valuable work that the EITB has done. Its important contribution in a vital skill centre should be continued, not least because of what it has done in maintaining the standards of training in the important engineering sector.
The Secretary of State said that during the transitional period he intends to ensure that the key activities of the board are continued. In this respect, I should like him to confirm that some of the important work being undertaken by the EITB will continue. For example, it does work on women in industry, something that is not seen as commercial in the short term but, given our earlier debates, will be important in the long term. It provides a comprehensive careers advice service, which should also be maintained.
What timetable does the Minister envisage for making appointments to the board? It is important, as it looks to the future, that it should know who the personnel involved will be.
Is there any chance that money from the European social fund will be lost because the levy will no longer be seen as public money?
Will the Minister confirm that the CITB and the EITB, which play such important roles as managers for YTS and employment training, will continue in those managerial roles under the new scheme?
We are not satisfied that the new arrangements for training are yet set out in sufficient detail for us to embrace them with enough confidence to permit the winding up of the training boards. They are not perfect, but in many other ways they are a vital part of the provision of skilled training. For that reason, if the House divides, we shall not be supporting the Lords amendments.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new


responsibility for employment. My hon. Friend dealt with the Secretary of State for Employment when he was responsible for energy. I hope that the Secretary of State is not too tired to understand what I am saying. The Opposition now have a shadow Secretary of State for Employment who will give the Secretary of State a good going over. He has got it coming, as the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was responsible for Energy, got it when my hon. Friend was responsible for energy. I hope that the Secretary of State will put down his notes and take the message on board.
When I was a lad, and into my youth, the industry in which I worked had a first-class training system. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not listening. He is talking to his junior, and he should not be. He should be listening to what Opposition Members are saying because all day Opposition Members have been making sensible contributions, but all too often these slick Ministers will not listen to what we say. The Secretary of State is a smart-Alick when he is speaking from the Government Dispatch Box. He appears almost every other week and introduces a different training scheme. The schemes are changed time and time again. He might get things right one day. He would do so if he listened to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have to say. He should understand that we have a special interest in the subject.
The Secretary of State makes it clear from the Government Front Bench that he does not like trade unions. He keeps on saying so. I watch him on the "box" when he thrashes the trade unions. He should understand that the trade unions have had a massive role in training. That has been my experience, and I was 35 years in the mining industry. I know that since 1979——

Mr. Nicholls: That is a long time ago.

Mr. Haynes: It is a long time ago, but I have a good memory. The young Minister must listen. If he does so, he will get a good training and work education. He will learn also how to represent constituents. I did not stand in court all day filling my pockets.

Mr. Nicholls: Not like the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

Mr. Haynes: I am talking about the Minister, not my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. The junior Minister is making many comments from a sedentary position.
I know what work is. I have told the House before that there is such a thing as a No. 10 shovel. It is as big as a table top. That was my implement—an implement of torture. I know what bloomin' work is. The Minister should have listened to the contributions from the workers. and there are many workers on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): And on this side, Frank!

Mr. Haynes: I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is sitting on the Government Benches below the Gangway. My hon. Friend is the Opposition's deputy Chief Whip. It may be that he did not want to sit behind me. If he wished to sit opposite me, he will have to be satisfied with a profile.
The Secretary of State told us about his involvement in training and talked about qualifications. What qualifications does the right hon. Gentleman have for training

people in industry? What experience has he had of training youngsters and others to undertake skilled jobs? I do riot think that he has had any. That will remain my view unless he intervenes to tell me about his qualifications and experience.
I resent someone with no qualifications preaching to me about training, and especially about safety, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). In the mining industry, which I left to come to this place, there have been many more deaths in the past few years than hitherto. That is tragic. The increase in the number of deaths is related to the Department and the Secretary of State. There are not enough inspectors to ensure that management and employees are doing the job properly under the appropriate safety regulations. Employees might not have received proper training.
When I was a lad and a youth in the mining industry, there was proper training. Managers and workers worked together in the interests of training and safety and to protect one another. I was taught to be my own safety officer, and that is the way to go about it. At the same time, however, we were also responsible for the chaps who worked on either side of us. The Secretary of State, the junior Minister and the Minister of State do not know about training and work. I have an idea that the Minister of State, who has just joined the Department from the Foreign Office, is in the same league as his right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.] We can have a joke now and again, but training and safety are serious matters and should be dealt with properly.
The question of 1992 has been mentioned in the Chamber on many occasions. If the United Kingdom is not prepared for 1992 it will go down the Swanee. In our preparations for 1992 should be the proper training of management and employees. That is in the interests not only of their health and their lives, but of the economy.
I am concerned about some of the Secretary of State's comments tonight about training. He has failed in the past; he must have failed, as he keeps coming back to the House with different schemes. He has been talking about this, that and the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield mentioned the training boards, which have now gone. My experience in life is that if something is not making a profit, something has to go. More often than not, the employee has to suffer. The training scheme is run down because the Government do not put in enough money. The Secretary of State is responsible for that, and he knows it.
I remember serving on an employment Bill Standing Committee where we discussed many aspects of employment, including training and safety. The junior Minister did a first-class job on behalf of the Government. Why? It was because the Secretary of State was hardly ever there. I was Opposition Whip on that Committee and I told the right hon. Gentleman that he could have Thursdays off because of Cabinet meetings—but I told him that I expected him back in the evenings if the Committee was still sitting. We did have some late sittings, and the junior Minister was there all the time. I am not afraid to admit that I helped him from time to time. The Committee did a good job on the Bill, but I cannot say the same for the right hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State should stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will be decent training schemes throughout industry. That is important for those who


work in industry, it is important for the economy and, most of all, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us—and we know, without her telling us—we must get ready for 1992. If we are not ready, the right hon. Gentleman is going down the Swanee with us.

Mr. Fowler: It is very reassuring to know that in the reshuffle on the Opposition Benches the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) marches on and has not changed. He will be relieved to know that it is quite possible that a new employment Bill will be introduced in the next Session, and we very much look forward to him serving on that.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is wrong—I am the Whip for energy.

Mr. Fowler: I was simply making an offer. I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman was not going on any more of his foreign trips—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I work in the Whips Office. I am here every day. I do not go on foreign trips, so he can come off that one.

Mr. Fowler: I must have made a mistake. I apologise. I recognise the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman said about training, and I agree with him about its importance, particularly in regard to Europe and 1992.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for his comments about the construction industry training board. It will be reviewed in three years' time. It is an exception to the general policy. It is sensible that there should be a review, and I hope that what I have announced today will end, as my hon. Friend suggested it would, the uncertainty that hung over it. I pay tribute to the work that it has done in an industry which stands apart from many of the other industries about which we have been talking.
In the few minutes that remain to me, I shall not be able to respond to everything that has been said, so I shall reply in the usual way. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) accused the Government of not being serious about training. I must remind him that his party opposed, root and branch, the introduction of employment training for long-term unemployed people for month after month. We tried honestly to introduce a scheme that provided training for such people, but the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), opposed it at every turn. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman puts his mind to the subject, that policy will change. It is all very well his uttering words about the importance of training, but we want some commitment from the Opposition.
In a scheme that is training more than 400,000 long-term unemployed people, 210,000 people are on the employment training programme, which has been opposed at every stage by the Labour party. I believe that that is an entirely indefensible position, and one of the first things that the hon. Member for Sedgefield should do in his new post is assess that policy and change it. There is no justification whatever for opposing a training programme which all the research shows is producing good training for

long-term unemployed people and brings them back into employment. We all agree about the importance of training, and there is no need to labour the point. One of the troubles with the case of industrial training boards is that they have not raised skill standards. There is also a range of levy arrangements with ITBs. It is not true that they are all provided with vital resources from the levy. The offshore petroleum board imposes no levy, and the hotel and catering board levy touches only 1 per cent. of firms in the industry. The proposals have come from the different industries themselves.
With the new TECs, we wish to see the local delivery of training; with the new industry training organisations, we wish to set new and good national standards.

Mr. Blair: rose——

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give way: it is not remotely possible.
Employers, the public and those involved in the TECs have demonstrated a new enthusiasm for training, and I hope very much that the whole House will share that enthusiasm.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the order this day, proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 32.

Division No. 384]
[1.35 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gregory, Conal


Amess, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Amos, Alan
Hague, William


Arbuthnot, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Boswell, Tim
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Bright, Graham
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Mans, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Miller, Sir Hal


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Iain


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Tim


Gill, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Gow, Ian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)






Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr, John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Warren, Kenneth



Wheeler, John





NOES


Alton, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Blair, Tony
Nellist, Dave


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Patchett, Terry


Buckley, George J.
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Randall, Stuart


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Redmond, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Richardson, Jo


Cummings, John
Short, Clare


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Wareing, Robert N.


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:——

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 33.

Division No. 385]
[1.47 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Chapman, Sydney
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chope, Christopher
Gow, Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Gregory, Conal


Cran, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hague, William


Day, Stephen
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')





Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Sir Hal
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mills, Iain
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Mitchell, Sir David





NOES


Alton, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Blair, Tony
Patchett, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Pike, Peter L.


Buckley, George J.
Randall, Stuart


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Redmond, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Richardson, Jo


Cryer, Bob
Short, Clare


Cummings, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Wallace, James


Dixon, Don
Wareing, Robert N.


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fyfe, Maria



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Noes


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Illsley, Eric



Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Electricians (Registration)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Stuart Randall: It is of great concern that, with the advent of the single European market, the United Kingdom electrical contracting industry will be at a serious disadvantage compared with its counterparts in most of the other Community countries. That arises from the fact that on the continent the industry is regulated in the sense that operatives can carry out electrical installation work only if they are suitably qualified. In addition, the work has to adhere to mandatory safety standards. Furthermore, work generally has to be inspected to ensure that those standards are met.
In the United Kingdom, the electrical contracting industry works within a self-regulated framework. One consequence of that is that anybody who wishes to call himself or herself an electrician can do such work and is not bound even by the safety standards of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. That system leads to shoddiness, with the effect that sub-standard electrical wiring resulted in 3,500 accidental fires in dwellings and 2,800 accidental fires in other occupied buildings in the United Kingdom in 1987. That is according to the Home Office document entitled "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1987". Mr. Gresty, the county trading standards officer of North Yorkshire county council, was kind enough to send me examples of extremely bad wiring practice. It is vital to take action to eliminate it.
The feeling in the industry is that the existing system of self-regulation will not enable it to compete fairly with unscrupulous continental operatives who will be able to work in the United Kingdom outside the influence of our system of self-regulation. The irony is that they will be able to do that without any qualifications and without having to concern themselves with safety standards in the United Kingdom, although they would be prevented from doing such work in their own countries by the various regulatory systems that exist there. Clearly, they would be able to cut corners and complete work more cheaply, but the safety consequences would be disastrous. Our industry is not asking for regulations on a basis comparable with those in the other EEC countries, but it is asking to be able to compete fairly with its EEC couterparts. I am sure that the Minister will find that a reasonable argument.
A key step towards addressing the problem is that the Electrical Contractors Association—with, I am glad to say, help from the Government—carried out detailed research and has just produced a report entitled, "Access for the British Electrical Contracting Industry to the European Single Market". That study investigated the issue of regulation in the electrical contracting industry in EEC countries and its possible impact on fair trade.
The main conclusions that I draw from the study are that the systems of regulation are variable in the EEC countries and there is no possibility of our self-regulated approach being adopted by the EEC for 1992. Therefore, we have to react to what exists on the continent in order to ensure fair competition and we need to do so as expeditiously as possible.
It is important to note that, if we fail to respond to the needs of the industry, our existing self-regulated system will not be able to monitor and establish the extent to

which unscrupulous operators were coming to the United Kingdom and what work was being done. Clearly, the consequences of that would be serious when one is dealing with the potentially hazardous issue of electricity supply.
The industry is not asking for a system of regulation along the lines that exist on the continent. It is asking for a voluntary system of self-certification of work which will be based on an assessment of contracting companies in terms of their skills and the application of mandatory technical standards. If a company wishes not to take part in the voluntary system, it would be free to do as it does now, but it would not be qualified to certify its own work. A third party would have to inspect the work and approve it.
Continental contracting companies would be free, like British companies, to decide which of those options to pursue. The key point is that all companies, whether British or continental, would be treated exactly the same. The other main element in all this is the need for reciprocal recognition arrangements to be put in place so that British contracting companies can compete fairly on the continent.
As our existing system of self-regulation would generally be unacceptable on the continent, it would result in an almost total barrier to trade and for the electrical contracting industry 1992 and all that would be a complete farce. An urgent solution is needed.
I want to say a little more about the structure of the self-certification process proposed by the ECA and the two conditions that have to be satisfied for that to happen. As I have already said, if a contractor wishes voluntarily to be able to self-certify its work, it must meet certain qualifying criteria regarding the company and its staff. Some of the criteria that I should like to see are that the company must be commercially competent, its staff must be qualified electricians and there must be a minimum level of experience of, say, three years. The criteria would need to be assessed by an independent Government-approved body similar to the one that already exists for the gas industry—the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers.
The second main condition which must be met for self-certification is that work must adhere to existing IEE wiring regulations. That adherence must now become mandatory. The ECA—proposed structure suggests that those wiring regulations should become part of the normal building regulations which must be adhered to as part of the normal local authority planning permission procedures relating to construction work. Just as the local authority inspects construction projects to ensure that they meet agreed planning permission and building regulation guidelines, under these arrangements inspection of wiring could be carried out by the contracting company itself if it was qualified to self-certify or by a third party if the company had decided that it did not wish to be able to self-certify. The inspection work could be carried out by the local authority or by the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting—both of which will have to adapt themselves to some extent to be able to carry out that work.
The upshot of all this is that continental electrical contractors would be able to work in the United Kingdom, but within the necessary IEE technical regulations that would ensure safety and fair competition. It must be stressed that 1992 must not result in the deterioration of electrical standards. On the contrary, the number of


electrically caused fires, fatalities and serious accidents in the United Kingdom causes concern and unquestionably justifies raising the standards of our electrical installations.
The other vital condition is that the reciprocal recognition arrangements which aim to allow British contractors to have fair access to continental markets must work effectively. I understand that there is agreement in principle on an industry basis between the ECA and the international trade association—the Association Internationale d'Entreprises Electriques.
Although the groundwork on reciprocal recognition is being done by the industry, I nevertheless believe that the time has come for Government to start playing a more active role in this matter. I am especially anxious that the Minister should press the EEC Commission to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the system of reciprocal recognition works in the interests of British industry. The Government can obviously do that far better than industry and I hope that the Minister will move quickly on this.
What are the possible legislative consequences? I believe that the Government have all the powers that they need. Does the Minister agree that the function of the approved body, to which I have referred and which would allow contractors to self-certify their work, could be dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? I refer specifically to schedule 3, clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. Does the Minister also agree that incorporating electrical wiring into building regulations could be dealt with administratively and would not require legislation? I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that.
The Consumers Association has written to me about incorporating electrical wiring into building regulations. It states:
The fact that anyone can set up a business in this field of work without qualifications or experience is highly unsatisfactory…We think that the Wiring Regulations drawn up by the IEE should have the force of law…We would, therefore, welcome any changes in the Building Regulations which would make it mandatory to meet the lEE standards.
I hope that the Minister will accept the proposal that I have put before the House, which is based on the views of the ECA, the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and others. Not to accept the proposal would pose a serious risk to our electrical contracting industry in terms of loss of trade and jobs. It would also have serious consequences for consumers because of the threats to safety that could arise from a deterioration in standards.
Will the Minister accept in principle the ECA structure that I have put before the House on the question of self-certification, third-party inspection and reciprocal recognition? If the Minister will not accept that structure in principle, will he tell the House exactly what he intends to put in its place and the timescale for producing alternative proposals, bearing in mind the urgent need for our industry to start preparing for 1992? I gave the Minister notice of that question, so I hope that he can give a reply.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that the industry is not advocating anything other than that the industry should be able to operate in a free market while recognising the different ways in which the continental industry is regulated and is likely to be regulated in the foreseeable future. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that much of what I have advocated for the

electrical contracting industry already exists for gas installations. Will the Minister confirm that he accepts the idea of having an approved body which would assess contractors to see if they satisfied the qualifying criteria for self-certification? I understand that the requirements for the approved body have already been defined by the ECA. Those requirements are comparable with what would be needed for Europe.
Will the Minister also confirm that he will give support to the electrical contracting industry by encouraging the EC Commission to establish a system of reciprocal recognition that will ensure that United Kingdom contractors are able to compete fairly at home and on the continent?

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to intervene briefly to congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on his good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate on such an interesting and important subject.
I declare an interest as one who has built up an electrical contracting business which is listed among the 10 largest in the industry. I have also represented the Electrical Contractors Association for some time in the House.
The Minister will be aware that our industry is in a unique position. It is in a healthy state, but it needs help from the Government to be able to compete vigorously in Europe. For many years in this country any Tom, Dick or Harry could set up here, and now any Fritz, Pierre or Sebastian will be able to do the same. At the same time, however, even the most qualified electrician here will have considerable difficulty in setting up and competing in Europe. That is why it is most important that the Government should establish reciprocal trading arrangements so that members of the ECA can go abroad to compete and to demonstrate that healthy state of our electrical contracting industry, which will then stand it in good stead when competing in Europe.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Do I take it that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) had the permission of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) to make a speech?

Mr. Thurnham: Yes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: So that it can be recorded in the Official Report, I should tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that it is a courtesy to inform the Chair when it is agreed that other hon. Members are to take part in the Adjournment debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for raising this interesting issue this morning He brings considerable expertise—no doubt based on his own background in electrical engineering—to it. I was interested to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is also an expert on this matter.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that electrical installation


engineers should be competent and properly qualified. But electrical contracting is one area where considerable regulation already exists or is being developed: first, self-regulation on the part of the industry and, secondly, regulation through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the control of supply and the building regulations.
First, I shall turn to voluntary self-regulation. The Electrical Contractors Association examines all the companies that apply to it for membership for technical skills, competence in contracting, sound business practices and the qualifications of their staff and operatives. Once admitted to the ECA, registered contractors are required to conform with the association's rules and standards. The ECA has for 40 years offered guarantees to customers, in support of their registered contractors. These guarantees cover not only the work undertaken by the contractor but also completion of the project if the original contractor experiences difficulties.
The National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting, a consumer safety organisation, has about 9,500 contractors on its register. By its own estimate, the NICEIC believes that about 75 per cent. of electrical contracting work in all sectors—domestic, commercial and industrial—is undertaken by contractors registered with it. Contractors are registered only after undergoing a full day's inspection by an NICEIC inspector and annual inspections take place thereafter.
I applaud the work of both these organisations and I am confident that the schemes run by the ECA and NICEIC—which are by no means mutually exclusive—offer the consumer excellent standards of safety and quality of service. It is primarily through the increasingly effective promotion of these schemes that the industry will be able to put its own house in order, since, as contractors realise that they will be unable to compete for trade without the backing of a recognised body, they will quickly be forced to seek recognised status or suffer in the market place.
Turning to health and safety, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989—made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—will come into force on 1 April 1990. The purpose of the regulations is to require precautions to be taken against the risk of death or personal injury from electricity in workplace activities.
On the control of supply, the Department of Energy has issued regulations for the safe and secure supply of electricity. Regulation 27 enables an electricity board to take into account compliance with the IEE wiring regulations in assessing whether an installation should be connected.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has referred to the suggestions from parts of the electrical industry that electrical installation work should be brought within the scope of the building regulations, as indeed is already the position in Scotland. We believe that the existing arrangements to ensure that such work is carried out in a safe manner are working well. Nevertheless, we are considering whether, particularly in the light of developments at the European level, it might be desirable to reinforce them with a general legal requirement in the regulations.
If we should decide to go down this path, there are a number of practical difficulties that would first need to be

resolved. In particular, we would have to find ways of ensuring that we were not simply adding an unnecessary and burdensome layer of bureaucratic control to the industry's own voluntary arrangements. We are discussing these issues with representatives from the industry, and, in accordance with our normal practice, we would consult widely on detailed proposals before deciding whether or not to introduce a requirement of this nature.
If electrical installation work were to be brought within the scope of the building regulations, an additional regulation made under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 would be necessary, and an approved document would be issued setting out how compliance with that regulation would be achieved.
I have already referred to developments at the European level. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are of prime importance.
The Electrical Contractors Association's report on the way in which the electrical installation industry is controlled in all the member states of the European Community is a most useful document. I am pleased to say that the Government made a large contribution to the funding of that research.
The report concludes that, on the whole, the industry is more highly regulated in other member states than in the United Kingdom and that this, in effect, creates barriers to entry for United Kingdom contractors. That is a serious allegation, and we shall wish to examine equally seriously whether barriers are, in practice, significant and, if so, how they should be tackled on a Community basis.
I do not, however, believe, for the reasons which I have already set out, that the right answer would be the introduction of statutory registration, either under schedule 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, or by other legislative means.
To achieve equality of market access in Europe, the ECA has advocated a system of reciprocal recognition. Appropriate reciprocal arrangements would, in the ECA's view, require some sort of formalisation of the current structure of self-regulation, based on recognition of contractors qualified to self-certify that their work complies with technical standards, while the work of other contractors would be subject to third-party inspection. An independent means, both of accrediting suitably qualified contractors and of providing inspection of other contractors, might be necessary.
These are, I think, suggestions which certainly deserve further exploration. The arguments were further developed by the hon. Gentleman. A key element would be the creation of an independent industry-wide approval and inspection body, perhaps modelled on CORGI, or perhaps on the NICEIC in a rather different and more broadly based form. To such a body, the Government would accord recognition but not, as I have said, statutory backing.
It is for the industry to carry these proposals forward. I gather that the ECA is currently consulting its continental European counterparts through the pan-European association, the AIE, and that the hope is that the AIE will arrive at an agreed approach to reciprocal recognition before the end of the year. In countries with statutory registration arrangements, the agreed approach will need to be brokered with Government and dealt with on a Communitywide basis. In the United Kingdom I shall be taking a close interest in any formalisation of the United Kingdom arrangements which may be necessary,


not least in the light of our current examination of whether the building regulations might be widened to include electrical installation.

Mr. Randall: Bearing in mind the agreement in principle in Britain between the ECA and the AIE on reciprocal recognition, does the Minister agree that the Government have an important role to play in pushing the matter forward through the EEC Commission?

Mr. Chope: The Government are certainly considering the appropriate steps to take in the light of these developments. I have nothing to report to the hon. Gentleman this evening, but I assure him that submissions are on their way: my Department is considering the matter.
Whatever the outcome, we must ensure that our electrical installation contractors are not disadvantaged in the single market. That the other member states have more statutory regulation of their electrical installation industries than we have may not matter in itself. Indeed, it does not necessarily mean that their standards of workmanship are higher. It would be fair to say that we have high standards in this country. That is not to say that we cannot improve them, but it would be wrong to suggest that our standards are lower than those of other countries.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Home Office statistics. They do not break down to wiring faults in the manner that he suggested. The best statistics that I have were produced by the Department of Energy and deal with domestic fatalities. Although one is too many, I am pleased to say that in 1987 there was only one death as a result of domestic wiring faults.

Mr. Randall: May I refer the Minister to table 49(a) in the report to which I referred? Under the heading "Dwellings", the report says that there were 3,549 accidental fires resulting from electrical wiring. Under the

second heading of "Other occupied buildings" the report says that there were 2,875 electrical wiring fires. These are Home Office statistics.

Mr. Chope: I do not dispute the overall statistics, but I am advised that whether the fires were caused by wiring faults is open to dispute. I shall note the documents to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Randall: I do not want to use the Minister's time, because I know that he wishes to answer the questions that I put to him, but the document breaks down the causes of fires and one of those specified is electrical wiring. Other electrical causes are mentioned and one could increase the number of accidents by including those caused by electrical appliances. I have specifically mentioned wiring which is the matter that would be covered by EC regulations and which we wish to see in legislation.

Mr. Chope: I shall not disagree with the information in the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall seek further information on the basis of what he has said.
If regulation leads to unfair barriers to trade for the United Kingdom's reputable installation contractors and thus to restrictions on European competition, we shall wish to consider carefully how those barriers might be removed. For the time being the ECA's proposals for reciprocal recognition in conjunction with technical control through the building regulations offers a possible way forward. I cannot say that the Government accept that as the solution, but, as I say, it certainly offers a possible way forward and we are considering it sympathetically.
I think that I have answered all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. If not, I shall be happy to clear up any that remain in correspondence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Two o'clock.